Author Archive

Wilmington on Movies: The Iceman

Sunday, May 19th, 2013

 

 

THE ICEMAN (Three Stars)

U.S.: Ariel Vromen, 2013

You want to know what “The Iceman” is? I’ll tell you. It was the nickname of a real-life Jersey guy named Richard Kuklinski who killed people for a living — and he’s the subject, the main guy,  of a new movie called The Iceman, where he‘s played by that great  f–kin’ actor Michael Shannon. Keep in mind that this fictionalized. They make some stuff up. But he (Richie I mean) was really good at it — whacking over a 100 guys by his count, maybe 250 by others, filling his contracts in so many different ways(shooting, strangling, poison, busting heads  slitting throats, etc) that he never seemed to leave a signature. A pro, you know what I mean?

Richie started killing people in the 1960s, when he worked in the porn industry, and eventually he got hired by this wise guy Roy Demeo (Ray Liotta) as a regular hit man for the Gambino family, and he was the best they had, the best you’ve ever seen, never mind that he wasn’t Italian. He was Polish. (Excuse me, he was Polish-American.) He was also a good family man. He took good care of his family — his wife Deborah (Wynona Ryder) and their two daughters Betsy and Anabel (Mega Sherrill and McKaley Miller) — and they didn’t have  a clue all those years what Richie really did for a living  (He told them he worked for Walt Disney, then that he was in something called currency valuation.)

The mob called him The Iceman because sometimes he’d kill a  guy, then put him on ice and freeze him, and drop the body later, so the cops would be confused about the time of death. And also, of course, because the guy was like ice on the job, absolute ice. As cold as a Smith and Wesson, loaded,  shoved against your neck, But don’t get me wrong: Richie had his nice side too. I mean, he took care of his family.  He never killed a guy unless he was being paid or unless the guy had it coming. And he never killed women or children. Never.

That was his big mistake.

I won’t tell you what happened to Richie — you may know already because they made a TV documentary and wrote  a book about him — and besides, you want a few surprises here, don‘t you? One thing that‘s no shock. Michael Shannon is terrific as Richie. I mean, the best. Even though the real Kuklinski was 300 pounds and Shannon is a better-looking guy, But it’s the movies, you know? This show has a lot of other even better-looking guys — I mean leading-man or one time leading-man types like Liotta as Roy, and David Schwimmer, that “Friends” guy, as this slimy little louse named Josh Rosenthal, and Chris Evans, Captain America himself, as this other hit man named Robert Pronge, whose cover is he drives a Mr. Freezy ice cream van, and Stephen Dorff as Joey, Richie’s brother in the slammer. And James Franco — he‘s only in one scene, but it’s a beauty. He plays this Marty Freeman, one of Richie’s hits, who prays to God to save him from Richie. I won’t tell you what happens. Hell, you already know.

But you know. why is Michael Shannon so Goddam good? The “Boardwlk Empire” Michael Shannon. I mean, the guy is first-rate, fabulous, good enough for an Oscar. Absolutely. You remember Revolutionary Road? Take Shelter? Bug? The tall crazy-looking guy with that weirdo don’t f-ck-with-me  stare? No Oscar out of at least one of those?  Give me a break. He should have had at least one, maybe two. And now one for this.

I tell you, it‘s amazing: He’s got this creepy look that scares the sh-t out of you. Never cracks a smile.When he talks, we believe him. I mean you believe this guy can slit the throat of some schmucko pool-player he just met, and then go home and be a good husband and father to Wynona and the girls. You believe he was this smart-ass spooky intellectual in Revolutionary Road too, and this obsessed crazy guy in Take Shelter. And the nut job in Bug.  All I can say is: My hat is off to the bastard. A Chicago guy, I hear.

They just shouldn’t wait too long to give him his prize, you now? They shouldn‘t wait until he’s some old guy who has to drag his ass up on stage and mumble and got propped up by some big star introducer a–hole. They should give it to him while he can still stare down the camera, while he can still make some money off it.

Though I imagine he makes plenty of money anyway, Like Richie. He sure as hell makes enough movies.

The other actors and actresses, they’re pretty good too. I mean better than pretty good. Maybe not great, but just on the edge of great. The movie is just on the edge of great, too. I’m not sure what it’s missing, except maybe it’s like The Godfather. They need more scenes of Richie’s family life, with Deborah (Wynona), and the kids. Like Coppola had lots of scenes with the Corleone family. He started the whole movie with that big family wedding, and that was the best scene in the whole damned movie.

I don’t know, Maybe somebody thought that having too many scenes with Wynona at home would start to get boring. But you know what I think? Maybe that’s where the real tension of the movie lies. I in this guy, this hit man, trying to keep up his front with his family and neighbors, and sometimes the mask almost slips, you know?  Anyhow, it would have been some kind of  contrast.

You know, the whole look of the movie reminded me a little of The Godfather. It’s dark and like shadowy and kind of grimy. Like real life, you know? The guy who shot it, the cameraman, Bobby Bukowski — another Polish guy, I guess. He’s good at shooting, like Richie. And you know what I hear? They shot this picture in Louisiana some place, not New Jersey. Just like that Brad Pitt movie where he was a hit man and so was the Sopranos guy Gandolfini. They shot that one in New Orleans, and, in the book, it was supposed to have been in Boston. Hey, what is this thing about Louisiana anyway? We’re a long ways away from Carlos Marcello — that old New Orleans outfit boss they think was partly behind the Kennedy hit.

Ah, fuggedaboutit. But there’s another thing that might interest you, especially since they only have this one Jew character in the picture I think, this Rosenthal, and he’s a louse. Iceman was directed and also some of it was written not by a guy like Scorsese or Coppola, some paisano like you’d think, but I swear, by this  Jewish guy Ariel Vromen, who comes from Israel. Can you believe it? What’s the deal, they’re running out of Italians? They’re maybe giving Liotta and Gandolfino too much, and De Niro  and that kid DiCaprio? Like hell they are. But anyway, you figure: the Israelis, in Tel Aviv, there’s a lot of blood in the streets there too. Maybe there’s whatever you call it, an affinity. An analogy. Whatever.

But I give this Ariel guy credit. You listen to the dialogue and you’d swear they’re all from New Jersey –or some place a lot like it.  Not like they’re copying The Sopranos or something, but the mood of it. The swing of it,  you know what I mean? I don’t know what else this director guy did — some movie named  Danika, I never heard of it  — but this one gets a lot of points, if for nothing else than it gives Michael Shannon that role of Richie Kuklinski , which is one hell of  role.

I tell you, Shannon looks at you, or he looks at the camera, whatever, and the cold sweat just shoots right through you. I bet it spooks you almost as much as if you saw the real-life Iceman guy, the real Richie, ready to ice somebody. Or like Angelo, Gina Maria’s brother-in-law, Remember him? The one who threw that numbers guy, Crazy Sonny Monicelli,  down the stairs on Dominic‘s party on the Feast of San Genarro? He — I mean the real Richie — has to have been scary too, you know? How many people did I say he killed? 100? 250? Hey, that’s a lot of people. That‘s impressive.

 

Wilmington on Movies: Star Trek Into Darkness

Saturday, May 18th, 2013

 

 

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS  (Three and a Half Stars)

U.S.: J. J. Abrams, 2013

Perhaps Star Trek Into Darkness should have been called Star Trek 12: The Wrath of Spock. Even numbers, you know.

But no, that’s no good: producer-writer-director J. J. Abrams hates colons. Anyway, Star Trek Into Darkness turns out to be just what you might have expected from a 100 million- dollar-plus-budgeted blockbuster, released in 3D, 2D  and IMAX, directed by Abrams (Lost, Alias,Super 8), and acted and written by Abrams’ high-grade team on the 2009s re-boot re-hit Star Trek. That movie, coming after an 11-year Star Trek space-hiatus,  was a shrewdly calculated, well-executed, entertaining show, with its share of  surprises, heavy-duty action scenes, big emotional moments  and nostalgic nods to the long 47 year history of Star Trek. And so is this one. I’m not in love with it, but I certainly enjoyed it — and so, I imagine, will much of its audience, as the movie rolls and soars and explodes its way toward  a 100 million dollar or so opening weekend. Which it probably deserves.

What do you expect? Back on the Enterprise are the whole immortal crew, headed by Chris Pine as the impulsive, courageous, reckless (and horny) Captain James T. Kirk (who was originally William Shatner), and Zachary Quinto, as the pointy-eared, magisterially logical and seemingly unemotional  First Officer Spock  — once played by Leonard Nimoy, who‘s back in this movie with a cameo as Spock Prime).

Backing them up — as Kirk and Spock quarrel once again about the superiority of logic or instinct, science or soldierly action, brain or brawn  — are that crackerjack  space-crew of Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban), Chief Engineer Montgomery “Beam Me Up, Scotty” Scott (Simon Pegg), Communications Officer Niota “Knockout” Uhura (Zoe Saldana),  Helmsman Hikaru “Smiley” Sulu (John Cho), and Ensign Pavel “How-Did-a-Russian-Get-On-Bboard?” Chekov (sic) (Anton Yelchin) — all the parts originated in the 1966-1969 series, and the first six Star Trek movies (1979-1989) by DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei and Walter Koenig.

One of the great appeals of the first six Star Trek movies, was always the appearance of that sort-of-magnificent seven. — not necessarily because they were great actors (Shatner  stopped that argument single-handedly), but because they were the peop11le’s choice and because we knew them for so long and we liked them — and because Shatner, no matter what you think of his florid line readings, fit his part of  the gutsy but sometimes anguished leader and okay guy, bemused by his intellectual buddy Spock. 1.

Another familiar face this time, along for at least part of the ride, is the tormented-looking Bruce Greenwood as Kirk‘s mentor from the 2009 Trek, Admiral Christopher Pike. (Pike was the Enterprise’s original captain, the character played in the Star Trek pilot show by Jeffrey Hunter).  And the new blood in this new movie includes a real scene-and-planet-stealing villain, Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock himself) as the cold-blooded ex-Starfleet renegade  John Harrison (an alias), plus another admiral, Peter Weller (of Robocop) as the demanding and hawkish Alexander Marcus, head man on the U.S.S. Vengeance.. There’s even an Enterprise stowaway, Alice Eve as hubba-hubba Science Officer Carol Wallace (another alias).

.

In Darkness begins with a bang in the twenty-third century, with a standard James Bond-Indiana Jones blast-you-out-of-your-seats opener, on the Planet Nibiru, where the always reckless Kirk and the often-exasperated Bones McCoy are being pursued by hostile pale-faced Nibirites, while Spock, in a heroic, self-sacrificing but unemotional mood, has lowered himself into  an active volcano, to try and save the planet. Spock does save the planet (as you might expect) and Kirk saves Spock (as you might also expect), and Kirk for violating the Starfleet Prime Directive about opening action scenes, is demoted from Enterprise Captain to First Officer, and separated from Spock — a mistake that’s  rectified after the super-terrorist Harrison, attacks and plunges into carnage a  Starfleet admiralty meeting in London. This results in the death of  Admiral Pike and Kirk’s  and Spock’s reinstatement as your favorite captain and first officer on the Enterprise with order to hunt down Harrison to the ends of the universe — or actually the Klingon planet Kronos, where he’s hiding out.

The action starts right at the beginning and then keeps on coming.  In Darkness is a typical sci-fi war movie in the post-Star Wars style, whereas the Star Trek TV Show, which would have a fight every now and then, mostly was a series of  science fiction fables, with Ray Bradbury-style messages. Darkness, as advertised, does have surprises in store — and, by the way, you should strenuously avoid the IMDB cast list, if you want to stay surprised. If the movie has a major problem, and many wont consider it  a problem at all, it‘s the need to keep the action scenes and space battles popping up at fairly frequent intervals.

What most people remember, and even treasure, about the TV show, is not the space battles (what there was of them), but the characters and their tense interactions –most especially the ongoing moral-philosophical debate between Kirk and Spock. Kirk was the constant hothead; Spock the professorial type who cooled things out. The two Abrams movies continue that conflict between two guys of widely differing temperaments, who basically love each other (as we’re told again and again). When Kirk, seemingly dying behind a glass door, reaches out his hand toward Spock‘s on the other side, you may think you’ve seen the gesture before (and you have), but the point is that most of us never get tired of it. Along with Ralph and Norton in “The Honeymooners” and Andy and Barney in “The Andy Griffith Show,” and  Cosby and Culp on “I Spy,”  Kirk and Spock were one of the great key TV bromances, and the new Star Trek series exploits and expands on that feeling.

It also shows them as young and heartily sexual, and full of juice and shenanigans. Chris Pine’s Kirk isn’t yet as full of himself as Shatner’s Kirk sometimes became, but the writers have turned him into a real ladies’ man. (In an early scene, we see him waking up from a threesome with two blondes, which is probably a Star Trek first.) And Spock has an often physical flirtation going with Uhura. Alice Eve is also aboard of course — but that seems a down-the line Kirk  adventure. As for the rest of the crew, I guess that have to stay celibate or explore new dimensions for the post-war five year exploration, or hope that the Enterprise finds intelligent life in the universe.

 

In many ways, it’s a relief watching this picture. After a decade of Patrick Stewart and company, and then more than a decade of franchise silence, 2009’s Star Trek ingeniously brought the original seven Enterprise crew members back together — in the process, demonstrating a  flair for matching the new younger actors playing the old characters with our memories of the original crew — and, as it turns out here, some others memories as well. I was happy that those blasts from the past included writer David Gerrold‘s pesky little Tribbles, with whom the old crew had such memorable troubles on the TV show long, long ago. And this isn’t just a walk-on, or roll-on. One of the Tribbles is a self-sacrificing star..

Anyway, this follow-up is just as careful to plow into the future, without jettisoning too much of the past — long-time Trekkies, or Trekkers, or Trekkeroos, or Tribblers, should be just as pleased with most of the movie as new-fangled Trek-Techs, or whatever the Star Trek gang is called now. (Don’t answer that.)

As you can see, In Darkness is a typical sci-fi war movie in the post-Star Wars style, whereas the Star Trek TV Show, which would have a fight every now and then, mostly was a series of  science fiction fables, with messages. Darkness, as advertised, does have surprises in store — and you should strenuously avoid the IMDB cast list, if you want to stay surprised. If the movie has a major problem, and many won’t consider it  a problem at all, it‘s the need to keep the action scenes and space battles popping up at fairly frequent intervals. It does. But though Benedict Cumberbatch is one grand hellfire villain, I kind of still prefer a Tribble or two.

Wilmington on DVDs: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp

Thursday, May 16th, 2013

 

PICK OF THE WEEK: CLASSIC

THE LIFE AND DEATH OF COLONEL BLIMP (Also Blu-ray Special Edition) (Four Stars)

U.K.: Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, 1943 (Criterion Collection)

There are three Deborah Kerrs in Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger’s strange and wonderful British war epic, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, and like many young male moviegoers, I fell in love with all of them the first time I saw the movie. Kerr plays three parts, unforgettably, in “Colonel Blimp,“ — three women who appear in different stages of the hero’s long life — and the reason for the triplication is that she’s the eternal returning love of the main character, Clive Candy (played by Roger Livesey). Clive, a quintessential  British military man, falls in love with one Deborah as a young man, loses her, finds her, and then loses and finds her again.

 

As I watched the movie, at 12 or 13, my heart began to jump each time Deborah appeared again. (Those reappearances do have a magical quality, somewhat like Kim Novak’s sudden reentry into Vertigo), And I know I wasn’t alone. One of the movie-s co-directors, Michael Powell, fell in love with Kerr during the production. They had an affair, and you can read Powell’s  feelings from the way he frames and photographs her  — the special shine on the images, the glow whenever she comes on screen.

What a sweet, knowing smile she had; what lovely soft eyes; what warmly beautiful red hair.  How could  Clive  Candy, or any young man, possibly resist this irresistible young Scotswoman? She  was not yet the openly sexy Deborah Kerr of From Here to Eternity, rolling in the surf in a bathing suit with Burt Lancaster, or the earthy Australian  Mama Kerr of The Sundowners , trading double entendres with Papa Robert Mitchum — or the neurotic  and frightened Ms. Kerr turning the screws as Henry James’ haunted governess in The Innocents. This was an unexpectedly young (21), unexpectedly radiant Deborah, giving her most lovable performance (or performances), ravishing her  director and her audiences and me all at once.

If the audiences were in love with the actress Deborah, and her character(s), so was one of thee film‘s co-directors, Michel Powell. He  had an affair during production  with the young (21) Ms. Kerr, after casting her as a replacement for his original choice, Wendy Hiller (who became pregnant and had to drop out). And so, in the movie’s fictional world, did Clive Candy,  played with such memorable British charm, spirit and style by Livesey. So did the movie‘s third main character, German officer Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff, played by that matchlessly elegant Viennese-born actor Anton Walbrook. We were all, it seems, in love with Ms. Kerr and her roles, and maybe you will be too.

But we also probably find Deborah — or Edith Hunter a.k.a. Margaret Wynne a.k.a.-Johnny Cannon — beautiful because of the way her costars look at her: the discreet and stoically held back joy and pain in the eyes of Livesey as Clive Candy (the movie‘s good soldier and its “Colonel Blimp”), and the suave delight in the eyes and smile of Walbrook as Clive’s life-long German friend and rival, Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff. Candy, who speaks with an inimitable husky voice, is the very model here of the good, decent, heroic and admirable British military man, and Theo, whom he meets in Berlin near the turn of the century (at the same time Clive meets and falls for Deborah) is his opposite number, a good, decent, and honorable German officer, an integral man in an eventually evil society,  who fights for his country in one war, and flees it for the other.

The film begins in the present (1942, during the height of WWII and The Blitz ), when Clive and Theo are old men (but the third Deborah, military gal Johnny Cannon, is magically young). Then, after Clive has a shoving match in a Turkish bath (with his nemesis, Johnny’s somewhat obnoxious boyfriend) and falls into the water,  the movie Colonel Blimp flashes all the way back to 1902, the time of the Boer War, when Clive was young and vigorous and shining-eyed and just about to meet, in Berlin, both Edith (Kerr Number One) and his soon-to-be best friend, Theo. Edith is the woman with whom they both fall in love (and whom Theo marries) and who is reborn, in a way, after World War I, in Margaret, whom Clive marries. Finally, Deborah Number 3 is the sprightly, energetic World War II British Army live-wire Johnny Cannon, for whom Clive is now too old — but who delights him just by being alive.

Colonel Blimp was Pressburger’s favorite of all the  films he made, perhaps because it’s so uncommonly ambitious: nearly three hours long, and covering nearly half a century. Yet it’s also — thanks to supreme  visual artists like Powell, cinematographer Georges Perinal and designer Alfred Junge — uncommonly well-made and uncommonly Technicolor-gorgeous. It’s also unusually light-hearted and even cheeky for a film with such a serious subject, and such inner sadness, done in such tragic times.

Candy is the center of the movie, and when he’s an elderly gent (back in the present), heading up home front efforts, he indeed looks like Col. Blimp, the famous Punch Magazine caricature by David Low of a crusty old upper-class British military officer with baleful eyes and a walrus droopy mustache. So it’s a bit of a shock when the flashback begins and we see Clive as a young and shining-eyed young soldier, falling eternally in love (but being a gentleman about it) with Edith Winter (Deborah Number One). He and Theo meet as future combatants maybe should, in a duel — which, ironically, they are supposed to be fighting  over Edith, a cover-up for the real reason, which is military and political. This is the beginning of a lifelong comradeship between two soldiers who are, unfortunately, on opposite sides for most of their lives — and of their love for the woman who keeps coming back to them, at various ages and times..

The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp was the first official production of Powell and Pressburger’s legendary film company, The Archers, and it’s a treasure of a film. It celebrates (while also gently satirizing) something you wouldn’t think would still work as an object of admiration with sophisticated film audiences, even in the middle of a war: the old British military ethos and traditions of the Edwardian era. By focusing on Clive Candy, following him from youth to age, contrasting him with Theo, revealing his great love for Edith, and packing it all into Livesey’s wonderful performance, Powell (who was primarily the director in the Archers’ collaboration) and Pressburger (primarily the writer) make the movie into something romantic, psychological, epic and marvelously bittersweet. They also provided a classic showcase for the three great and immensely likable actors — Kerr, Livesey and Walbrook — who play together so beautifully and who together bring a heart of romance to the myth of the Good Soldier..

It’s peculiar perhaps that a movie which is so obviously one of the screen’s great celebrations of male friendship in wartime should be so wrapped up in the impossible love inspired by a red-headed Scottish actress? But The Archers courted and cultivated the unusual. None of their films are quite “as they should be.“ Colonel Blimp, is a pretty  strangely constructed story:  one that often glides away just when we think the main action is about to commence, When  Clive and Theo meet for their grand, memorable duel in the upper hall of  a fencing academy, the camera pulls up, up, and magically away through a skylight out into a snowy  night, where we then continue to glide away from the action.

Clive and Theo ceaselessly call each other their best friend  though, as far as we know, they hardly meet or see each other after their first encounters and instant comradeship in Berlin  (when Theo can barely speak English) or between wars, or until Theo finally moves to England in the ’30s to escape Hitler (just as Pressburger moved from Germany in 1933 to escape the Nazis.) Yet we accept their friendship even though, for most of their lives, so little of it is shown or implied, just as we accept the duel we don’t see, and the wars, which we largely don’t witness either. Like Jean Renoir’s anti-war masterpiece Grand Illusion — which probably influenced it — Colonel Blimp is a film about the effects and repercussions of the war and the personalities and drama of the warriors (and the warrior‘s rest), rather than about the war itself.  (Blimp’s fractured chronology, by the way, suggests another probable influence, Citizen Kane.)

Powell and Pressburger had been collaborating as director (Powell) and writer (Pressburger) for several years  on smart spy thrillers like Contraband and The Spy in Black, when they formed The Archers. And they made The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp as their first film — despite the disapproval of both the British War censors and, in the government, of the formidable Winston Churchill. (Churchill so disliked the script, he was responsible for denying The Archers the services of Laurence Olivier, their original choice for Clive.)

It was a project of vaulting ambition and unusual difficulties, and the Powell-Pressburger team brought it off masterfully — or so we now think, despite the fact that Colonel Blimp had little commercial or critical success on its first release, and was available only in severely cut versions for years afterward.  But something about the movie lodges in your mind and arouses deep feelings, quickens your pulse the way Kipling can in ‘Gunga Din.“ No small part of  that powerful effect comes from the three Ms. Kerrs, who, as far as I’m concerned, can keep eternally returning to Colonel Blimp and to Clive Candy, and to Theo Kretschmar-Schuldorff, and to me, forever.

Extras: Video Introduction by Martin Scorsese;  Commentary by Michael Powell and Scorsese;; Documentary A Profile of the Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (2000); Restoration demonstration by Scorsese; Interview with Thelma Schoonmaker Powell, Powell’s widow; Galleires of production stills nd Dvaid Low’s original Colonel Blimp cartoons; Bookley with an excellent essay by Molly Haskell

Wilmington on DVDs: Starlet; Cloud Atlas

Wednesday, May 15th, 2013

CO-PICKS OF THE WEEK: NEW –

STARLET  (Three Stars)

U.S.: Sean Baker, 2013 (Music Box)

There’s ’at least one redeeming thing about the movies. Sometimes, they don’t really need hundreds of millions of dollars worth of superstars and special affects and expensive stuff to engage and move us.  Sometimes pretty much all they have to have is a small budget, and the right  people, a real setting, the right artists and a camera  to shoot it and equipment to record it. That’s about all director/co-writer Sean Baker has in his new movie Starlet — and it‘s more than enough.

Baker’s picture takes place in the San Fernando Valley (“The Valley” to many Angelenos) and it’s all about an attractive and somewhat childlike  young Valley woman named Jane (Dree Hemingway), her madly dysfunctional roommates,  her little dog Starlet, and an old woman named Sadie (Besedka Johnson), whom Jane meets under strange circumstances, and befriends, and with whom she shares an oddball adventure. This  tale of two Valley women  absorbs you and amuses you and maybe breaks your heart.

The milieu the movie reveals here, will be recognizable to some. Jane works in the movie industry or one seedy aspect of it, and so (in a way) do her hapless young friends. They’re an unsavory bunch and so are Jane’s employers. Jane however is likable and so, eventually is Sadie (Besedka Johnson) , a crabby old lady who takes some getting used to. Jane meets Sadie when she accidentally finds some money in a thermos Sadie sells her at a yard sale. Jane spends some of it, then feels guilty, then goes to Sadie’s house (a very reclusive, nondescript and unpleasant place) and offers the old lady her friendship, which Sadie is slow to accept. But things change.

That’s the movie, or as much of it as I want to mention here.  It’s  worth your time, and it’s much better than many movies that cost much more.  Starlet’s main idea — that life can be ridiculous and hurtful but is sometimes redeemed, a little,  by the humanity we put into it — is very well done. I was quite moved by the show, and you may be (or should be) as well.

Starlet reminded me some of the best of the other American cinematic realist-humanists, like Jon Jost, Henry Jaglom and the great John Cassavetes. They could seduce you into being entertained by the ordinary, and so can Baker. So can the actors, especially the leads. Dree Hemingway, the daughter of Mariel Hemingway, is excellent,  offbeat, sweet, and a little ditzy, as Jane — and  there’s not a moment in this film where she doesn’t seem real. Just as good, and even more moving, is Besedka Johnson as Sadie, giving a marvelous performance: one of the most affecting  portraits of the crochets and pains and bad times and redemptions of old age that I’ve seen in a movie. Ms. Johnson’s performance here is a thing of casual and convincing beauty. It got to me, even if Sadie occasionally  aggravates — as she would in real life.

A last word; This was the movie debut of Besedka Johnson, a professional astrologer, and it’s an astonishing one. I voted for Besedka  in my ballots for Best Supporting Actress last year, and though she didn’t win, I’m happy I gave her my votes. Besedka  died last April, at 87, something I didn’t know until now. Sad. But at least she was able to leave us with something precious and real. I don’t believe in astrology, but I’m sure Sadie, that crabby old lady,  was born under a good sign. Goodbye, Ms. Johnson.

CO-PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW –

CLOUD ATLAS (Four Stars)

 Germany-U.S.: Tom Tykwer-Lana Wachowski-Andy Wachowski, 2012 (Warner Home Video)

I loved it.  It’s a moviel, that can probably be watched repeatedly, and discussed endlessly. It’s divided the critics — some are fervently pro, some contemptuously con — in a way that usually  only the more interesting pictures  do. It’s long, it’s complex, and it violates about half the rules for a big-budget big-audience movie, while following (and triumphing in) about half the others.

Cloud Atlas is based on the well-reviewed, much-awarded (or short-listed) British novel by David Mitchell, a book that links together six stories, ranging in time and place from the Pacific Ocean in 1850, to Belgium in 1931, to California in 1975, to the United Kingdom right about now, to South Korea in the near future, to  an island somewhere in the ocean somewhen past the Apocalypse.

The movie has a huge cast — topped by Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Brioadbent, Hugo Weaving, Hugo Weaving , Jim Sturgess and others — and it’s made even huger by the fact that the main actors keep popping up in more than one film, playing different roles. In all but one case, that is: The role of whistle-blower Rufus Sixsmith is played in both Parts Two and Three by James D’Arcy. The makeup jobs are sometimes fabulous; you may be shocked, occasionally when you find out who’s playing who.

Mitchell arranged his novel in six parts, advancing chronologically, and those parts  kept breaking off in the middle to bring in part of the last chapter. Then he finished up with the resolution of all six stories, this time in reverse (or mirror) order. It’s a tricky structure, maybe not as tricky as Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire, but ingeniously crafted enough. So, to lessen the confusion, I suggest you  read a long synopsis before seeing it.  It would be best to read the novel first, of course, but I realize that’s not an option for lots of us.  Later, maybe.

The movie takes those six genre-mashing stories and interweaves them, cutting back and forth –  as in Inception. Tykwer and the Wachowskis apparently wrote this infernally complex script together, and then split up for the shooting: Tykwer and his team taking Parts Two, Three and Four, and the Wachowski handling One, Five and Six. As mentioned, the actors take multiple roles, and that’s not a stunt. The galleries of roles reinforce Mitchell’s theme of reincarnation and of souls traveling from body to body. The movie, meanwhile, takes on  many forms itself. It’s full of romance and mystery and action and spectacle and humor, and the overall form reminds you of nothing so much as D. W. Griffith and his four interweaving stories in that other madly ambitious fugue of an epic, 1916’s Intolerance. (That got some awful reviews, too.)

Even if you despise it, you’ll have fun vivisecting it afterwards. It’s 164 minutes long, and, as Roger Ebert said, there’s not a boring second in it. Bewilder ing maybe. Bewitched or bothered perhaps. Boring no.

Exras: None. (The one disappointment,)

 

 

Wilmington on Movies: Sightseers

Saturday, May 11th, 2013

 

SIGHTSEERS (Two Stars)

U.K.: Ben Wheatley, 2013

 

Maybe I’m getting cranky, but I found very little to laugh at in the alleged black British comedy, Sightseers –  a terminally nasty love-on-the-run thriller in which a couple of strangely ordinary-looking British misfits named Chris and Tina take a caravan trip though the North, a vacation  that eventually turns into a murder spree.

 

At first, this seems an unlikely development. (In fact, it still seems pretty unlikely when we’re right n the bloody thick of it.) Tina (Alice Lowe) is a repressed homebody desperate to get away from her mouthy mum Carol (Eileen Davies),  and also still mourning the peculiar accidental death of  her terrier Poppy: Tina’s Prince Charmless and maybe escape hatch, Chris (Steve Oram),  is a would-be writer with a beard and a hot trigger temper who wants repressed Tina for  a muse, and also wants to treat her to a caravan excursion through the dorky landmarks and banal tourist spots he loves, like the Grich Tramway Museum, the Ribblehead Viaduct  and a pencil museum (with the world‘s largest pencil).

On the trip the two get close (and loud) and Tina – like Katharine Hepburn in Venice in Summertime — blossoms. Or seems to blossom. Unfortunately, Chris proves to have a tendency to flare up, go bonkers and kill people, all with very little provocation. At one point, at the Tramway Museum, he runs over a fellow traveler for littering. At another stop, he goes berserk when a snobbish, smiling gentleman complains about Tina’s new dog Banjo pooping on the grass, and bashes him with a tree branch. I won’t even try to describe what happens at the Pencil Museum. (Fooled you!) Other gruesome events follow, mostly ignored by the police or unwitnessed by witnesses, or otherwise consequenceless, and all done gruesomely deadpan by Chris and Tina on screen, and by their Offscreen creators:  actor-writers Oram and Ms. Lowe and director Ben Wheatley. Wheatley also made last year’s deadpan bloody horror-crime thriller Kill List, which I didn’t like very much either. As I said , maybe I‘m getting intolerant with age.

But it’s not that I dislike black comedy; It’s just that I dislike this black comedy. British filmmakers, after all  — or at least some of them –  have often been smashingly good at milking  chuckles out of bloody subjects like murder and mayhem. and hellfire.  Consider Alfred Hitchcock, one of my favorite directors. Or consider  the Alec Guinness-Alexander Mackendrick  crime comedy The Ladykillers, which  is one of my favorite movies — as is Kind Hearts and Coronets, where Guinness was killed eight times by aristo-wannabe Dennis Price. I‘m also partial to Goon Show and Monty Python humor, engineered by madcaps who, I seem to remember,  were never shy about killing or torturing or even crucifying a bloke or two, just for a laugh.  I used to chuckle evilly at them all. But Sightseers couldn’t muster a chuckle from me, evil or not.

Maybe that’s because Chris and Tina are the kind of eccentric lower middle class types you often see in Mike Leigh or Ken Loach films (Eileen Davies is a Leigh actress), but done so coldly and cruelly that one begins to hate the sight of them. There‘s no one deeper than the Brits into class consciousness and conflict, but it’s difficult to laugh, or even get much interested in characters who seem barely human, unless there’s another contrasting character who can generate a little sympathy. (There actually is one here, but he doesn’t show up until very late and then doesn‘t do much.)

Lowe and Oram developed Chris and Tina in their standup comedy act, which means that they know where the laughs are, or where they should be. But maybe that’s the problem. I can see this story –  or bits of it — working well live on a stage, with Lowe and Oram on chairs, and with the murder victims (maybe all played by the same actor, like Guinness in Coronets) periodically popping up  and then popping off. But shooting the film on location, with realistic people and realistic blood, makes it more real, and less funny. The show begins to look like a piece of Leigh socially conscious comic realism in which some of the characters have gone psycho.

I realize that there were plenty of critics, and maybe plenty of viewers,  chortling away at Sightseers. But for me, it would have been better to make the whole show, and especially the acting, more stylized — as in the Ealing comedies cited above or in the way Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov shaded a similar story, and similar looking characters, in the more potentially offensive (but basically too-fantastic-to-offend) Eating Raoul. The people who made the movie, are talented, but not only did I not laugh at Sightseers. I didn’t even want to laugh. There are few semi-brilliant moments in the show — including the shocker at the end — but for me, it was semi-amusing at best. Or maybe I‘m just getting too bloody cranky.

 

Wilmington on Movies: The Great Gatsby

Saturday, May 11th, 2013

THE GREAT GATSBY (Four  Stars)
U.S.-Australia: Baz Luhrmann, 2013

“Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then,  but that’s no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…And one fine morning –

     .     “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”

                                                                               F. Scott Fitzgerald (“The Great Gatsby”)I

I. Bazzle-Dazzle 

Ignore the bashers. Baz Luhrmann’s often dazzling, sometimes excessive, frequently fascinating film of  novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Jazz Age masterpiece, The Great Gatsby—a movie that has been trashed by a number of critics—is not only not a disaster. It’s one of the best movies of the still-young year.  Predictably crammed with cinematic razzle-dazzle, and done  in Luhrmann‘s (Moulin Rouge, Strictly Ballroom) highest style, it’s a stunningly imaginative, sometimes madly enjoyable show. At it‘s best, it makes a classic of literature come alive again on the screen in startling,  voluptuously entertaining new ways.

To be honest, some of it (not a lot) is probably over the top, perhaps self-indulgent  and annoying to literary purists (and some impurists) — but not so much that it cancels out, or even seriously diminishes the many pleasures that this Gatsby and its superb source, marvelous cast and first-rate technical people  have to offer. I saw the movie twice last week and just finished reading Fitzgerald‘s novel again — and, between them both, I’ve rarely had a better time in or out of the movies all year. Mulling over how much pleasure The Great Gatsby gave me, makes me  feel a little sad that people are being steered away from it, especially if they’re more often steered toward gruesomely illogical horror shows like the remade Evil Dead, or to a cruel,  unfunny little dark road  comedy like Sightseers.

Luhrmann’s new movie is not the Gatsby I envisioned as I read (and re-read) the novel. But I didn‘t expect it to be, and you shouldn‘t either. This film may not capture  all the aesthetic brilliance and sexy allure of the book. (How could it?). But it gives us plenty to enjoy, and I enjoyed most of it: including the Luhrmann-Craig Pearce script, based admiringly on Fitzgerald’s book, that  keeps intact a lot of Fitzgerald’s  lyrical narration and fizzy icy-liquor dialogue. This Gatsby is often as much Luhrmann’s — and his wife, production-costume designer Catherine Martin’s — as it is Fitzgerald’s. But it has a lot of the book in it, and the resulting mixture is snazzy, beguiling,.smart, exciting and marvelous to look at. And, of course, courtesy of Fitzgerald, it has a great story, which, contrary to what you may have heard, has not been botched and debauched out of all recognition.

To the contrary. Though Luhrmann’s stamp is all over the movie, it’s still a quite faithful version of the book (more so than the three previous Hollywood versions): a literary adaptation that preserves much of the original text, but is also encased in a dreamy, show-bizzy musical romp and an ultra-romantic Roaring Twenties movie-movie style that keeps going off in wild stylistic riffs.

There’s something admittedly kitschy and pop-operatic and even pop-grand-operatic about Luhrmann’s style here, even when the music isn’t playing (which isn’t often). It’s as if  Verdi, while composing one of his Shakespearean operas (Falstaff or Otello), had also been able to include a lot of Shakespeare’s original spoken text and dialogue as well, and threw in “O Sole Mio“ for good measure.  In this Gatsby though, the arias are usually Fitzgerald’s prose-poems, spoken (very effectively, with a kind of morose reverie and regret) by Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway. So we get the novel‘s ”He had come such a long way to this blue lawn and his dream must have seemed so close, he could hardly fail to grasp it,” and sometimes the jewel-like words and phrases writhe across the screen in dancing subtitles, a tribute to Fitzgerald’s gorgeously alive prose.

In any case, I don’t think Luhrmann’s imagination or audacity with this material should be held against him — as if he’d committed some crime against art by not making the super-faithful, painstaking BBC miniseries version or respectful theatrical film that we wouldn’t expect from him anyway, and that somebody else can make later on. This is something different, a romantic musical Gatsby,  a  Gatsby for the new millennium. That’s part, of course, of what the movie’s detractors object to. Perhaps because of all the hype, they’ve decided that Luhrmann is an ego-tripping revisionist show-off and that the book has been buried under the spectacular rubble.

But Fitzgerald’s classic  novel is still the great animating force, inspiration and artistic structure behind the film and all its flights of fancy.  Luhrmann so obviously loves and admires the book and wants to give it his best, that his Gatsby becomes not only a  beautiful movie and the best Gatsby film adaptation of the several made so far  (1926’s with gruff, glum Warner Baxter, 1949’s with suave Alan Ladd, and 19740’s with golden boy Robert Redford), but a sometimes truly fabulous entertainment, exploding past the book’s original, beautifully filled boundaries,  shooting off like a black sky full of fireworks over a blazing dance floor packed with intoxicated revelers.

II. The Jazz Age

If ever a novel seemed perfectly matched to the movies, it’s  Fitzgerald’s  “The Great Gatsby.“ The plot seems born for MGM or Paramount in their glory silent years. Even as you read it, the lustrous, glamorous  images burn into your memory. and the characters whirl and  dance in your mind while they flirt and kibitz and drink gobs of expensive liquor — gyrating and Charlestoning their frantic way through parties and assignations on the lawns and beaches and vast mansions of the fictional Long Island domains of East Egg and West Egg.

Romance and sin and drama and glossy décor and beautiful people and huge, mind-boggling wealth and other cinematic mainstays are there, and so are some great, provocative literary themes and characters. Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby is about the glamour and evil of money — as many movies were, especially in the Jazz Age — and it’s also about the glory and anguish of romance –as many movies are still, although usually they have happy endings and

(EXCUSE ME: SPOILER ALERT: roll over to reveal)

Gatsby, famously, doesn’t.

END OF ALERT

The central characters are not just rich, but super-rich or famous: Gatsby himself (Leonardo DiCaprio, in a performance of poignant splendor), pretty fragile belle-of-the-ball Daisy Fay Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), her wealthy, brutish husband Tom (Joel Edgerton) and her semi-androgynous golf pro crony Jordan Baker (Elizabeth Debicki) — as well as the more modestly moneyed “poor boy“ Wall Street bond-seller Nick Carraway (Maguire) who acts as the tale‘s ironic, grieving, poetic observer and narrator. (Only in a story as plush and rich, yet openly critical, as The Great Gatsby could a bond-seller from a well-to-do family be regarded as a poor boy.) And there are the others, even poorer than Nick: Isla Fisher as Tom‘s crass juicy mistress Myrtle Wilson and Jason Clarke as Myrtle‘s hapless and haggard husband, gas station owner and car guy George.

Both book and movie are about affluent, selfish American hedonists like Tom and Daisy who “smashed up things and creatures and then retreated into their money,” “careless” spoilers who live in posh East Egg, Long Island, and who seduce (and maybe diminish or destroy) people like Gatsby, the one-time Western plains poor boy who’s risen to the New York City heights, and who foolishly wants to be like them, and to win at their games.

The story is narrated (in both novel and movie) by the character often described as Fitzgerald’s literary surrogate, Nick Carraway, who has moved into a cottage next door to the estate of society titan Gatsby—and who becomes Gatsby’s friend and confidante after Jay learns that Nick is the second cousin of the great love of Gatsby’s  life: pretty Daisy of Louisville, Kentucky, whom Jay met and fell in love with before he went off to World War I. (Daisy,, a character both real and deeply fallible, is at least partly modeled after Scott’s  own radiant, emotionally disturbed  wife Zelda — a novelist herself.)

In movie as in book, flashbacks (or revelations told to Nick)  keep carrying us back into the past Gatsby wants so desperately to recapture, the nights of love and courtship in Louisville, Kentucky with Daisy — and the film revels in this fluidity of time.  Then, after we learn of that  devastating meeting and parting of Gatsby and Daisy — one of those intense romantic conjunctions that we never forget and never get over — we also learn the rest: how the lovers lost touch during the war and Daisy married rich all-American footballer/tennis/polo player and racist libertine Tom Buchanan (whose wealth is inherited and whose infidelities are legion), and moved into a mansion in the old money East Egg area on Long Island, just across the lake from what has now become Gatsby’s estate (and Nick’s cottage) in the new money West Egg area — far away, but close enough so Gatsby can see and tantalize himself with the haunting view off his pier of a flashing green light on the Buchanan estate, and Nick can tantalize himself with watching Gatsby watching it. In the rest of the story — which has one of the great American plots, besides being written so beautifully it stuns you — Gatsby woos Daisy again, and they all face the consequences.

Luhrmann’s movie is, as we said, faithful to its source. And where it deviates  — as in having Nick writing the novel as therapy in an asylum where he’s being treated by  a psychiatrist named Perkins (played by Aussie movie legend Jack Thompson) for, among other things “morbid alcoholism’ — it has fairly good reasons and sometimes interesting results. That includes, amazingly, the use of a score with contemporary hip-hop music by executive producer Jay Z:  an idea that disheartened me when I first heard about it, but which I accepted quickly on screen. (Perkins, by the way, was the last name of Fitzgerald’s — and Hemingway’s and Thomas Wolfe’s — legendary Scribners editor Maxwell Perkins.)

We get a lot of Fitzgerald’s writing in the movie (sometimes in those writhing little scripts on screen) and that‘s another of the film’s strengths. Nick’s narration and most of the dialogue come largely out of the book — as opposed to the many film adaptations of major, narrated novels (like Mark Twain’s or Charles Dickens’ or Henry James‘) which simply, and, I think, mistakenly, jettison the original author’s words and prose, even though  the words and prose are a large part of what made us love those books and writers in the first place. Rob The Great Gatsby of Nick’s painful, poetic, intoxicated   reveries and you’ve lost much of what makes it great. That doesn’t happen here.

In DiCaprio, the movie also has, in its title role, one of the best Gatsbys (if not the best) imaginable: the star of Titanic and The Aviator and The Gangs of New York playing what now seems a nearly perfect part for him, and playing it perfectly. DiCaprio has a great look as Gatsby. He’s an Arrow Collar guy with wary eyes and a softly vulnerable smile, and his most frequent salutation, “Old Sport,” spoken in a deliberately artificial stage accent. is an almost touching pastiche of the British aristocracy and the American pseudo-aristocracy. The movie’s Jay Gatsby, a mystery man and  an ultimate ‘20s romantic, is a heart-breakingly sweet and reckless character  and DiCaprio makes him a believably sweet and reckless soul — an eternal love-torn boyish climber who won’t let go of the past and is hell-bent on winning back Daisy.

A delusion? “You can’t bring back the past,“ Nick warns Gatsby, (No you can’t, but that‘s what movies routinely do.)  Gatsby, radiating that “hope” and ‘romantic readiness” that Nick will sadly celebrate, answers buoyantly “Of course, you can.” Of course…You can buy anything. Why not the past? Or the future. (No you can’t.) Or even the present. (No. You can’t do that either –unless you move in the right circles.)

As for the rest of the  cast, Edgerton, as Tom, very knowingly and powerfully incarnates the sometime cruelty of great, unearned wealth. Debicki is a properly saucy Jordan, Fisher an amusingly and sadly trashy Myrtle, Jason Clarke a hapless George ( a man of ash living near the story‘s famed valleys of ashes) and Bollywood superstar Amitabh Bachchan has an anachronistic, dashing take on Gatsby‘s patron, Meyer Wolfsheim (supposedly the gambler who fixed the 1919 World Series).

The one casting problem for me was the Daisy of the usually admirable Carey Mulligan. The difficulty with this part — and Betty Field in 1949 and Mia Farrow in 1974 had similar problems with it –is that Daisy is someone whom the movie’s hero loves unto death, beyond all reason, and even if we feel he’s wrong to feel that way (and we probably do), we have to know why he does. We have to feel some part of what resonates so enduringly in his hopeful heart. Carey Mulligan is a sometimes superb actress (as in An Education). But she’s more a brainy and sensitive gal than a heart-piercing or regal beauty (a Kidman, a Paltrow, a Wasikowska), and she (or maybe Luhrmann) have also chosen to have Mulligan play the part without enough of the high intensity, spark, and incandescence that would have made her more of a magnet. I should add that Mulligan gives a  fine performance anyway. She‘s just not as perfect a match with the part as DiCaprio with his. Or as Maguire, whose Nick seems initially a well-contained, almost diffident witness and chronicler, the one rational guy around, but who also conveys a held-back yearning for Gatsby‘s approval that almost suggests Gatsby’s intense feeling for Daisy.

III. The Green Light

Finally, The Great Gatsby has a great look: a spectacular visual realization of the Roaring  Twenties in New York, and the time’s orgies and gestalt. (The movie’s most compelling image, like the book’s, is the giant painting of  bespectacled eyes, on the abandoned optometrist‘s billboard, near the Wilson gas station. The eyes of an absent God?) That fantastic style showcases CGI and 3D in highly creative ways — especially in the show’s great gaudy centerpiece, the first big Gatsby party that Nick attends, with both period ‘20s songs and hip-hop blasting way, and people in snazzy ‘20s duds jumping up and down to the music (which ranges from Jay Z to Fats Waller to George Gershwin’s crashing, soaring “Rhapsody in Blue,“ accompanied by fireworks), all bobbing like apples and candies and colored lights in a moonlit tide.

Together Luhrmann and Martin (and the company) have created their own little world of artifice and nostalgia, set in a dreamy fabrication of 1922 Long Island and Manhattan (actually shot in Luhrmann’s and Martin’s native Australia), a romantic-fantasy domain that knocks your eyes out again and again. It’s a world that, especially in the party scenes, makes you feel happily drunk — a feeling that fits, since the story is taken from a novel (like Dashiell Hammett’s 1934 “The Thin Man”)  about people who drink too much, written by a self-indulgent genius of a writer who drank too much — and though The Great Gatsby’s narrator  Nick Caraway tells us he‘s only been drunk twice, we may find it hard to believe him, at least without taking a few snorts ourselves.

This is Luhrmann’s Gatsby (yet Fitzgerald’s also). But the novel’s original qualities shine though as well. It becomes not only a  beautiful movie and the best Gatsby film adaptation of the several made so far, but, for me,  an instant classic.

I realize that dozens of reviewers (some quite savvily and eloquently, some viciously and/or “humorously.”) are trying to persuade you that the movie is nothing of the kind. When you see it, and you should. you may well agree. But I hope the audience listens  more to some of the critics who liked it, or liked it with reservations — like Todd McCarthy of The Hollywood Reporter, Tony Scott of the New York Times, Lou Lumenick of the New York Post, David Edelstein of New York Mazazine, Dana Stevens of Slate, and, especially the right-on Richard Corliss of Time magazine.

So why has the film been so vehemently attacked, so nastily axed? Maybe because it’s an adaptation of a book now routinely selected by people with good literature credentials as the Great American Novel, or at least one of them (with “Huckleberry Finn,” “Moby Dick,” “The Portrait of a Lady” and a few others), and many serious movie critics like to prove that they’re not seduced by a film’s literary credentials, and also that they’ve read the book  and are appalled at the cinematic havoc wreaked.

And maybe because Baz Luhrmann, now routinely savaged by some as the crazy Aussie madman of the movies, has the kind of go-for-broke style that  either mightily entertains you or just plain rubs you the wrong way. A flamboyant, dare-anything style like Orson Welles’ in Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons, which was a film the original preview audience certainly thought was over the top, off the edge, and out to lunch. Now we think it’s magnificent. Maybe some day, as with that Scott Fitzgerald novel that was rejected back in 1925, we’ll think Gatsby is great.

Wilmington on DVDs: Strictly Ballroom; Cloak and Dagger; The Guilt Trip; Mama

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013

STRICTLY BALLROOM (Three Stars)

Australia-U.S.: Baz Luhrmann, 1992 (Miramax Lionsgate)

Before the razzle-dazzle of Romeo and Juliet, or the spectacular virtuosity of Moulin Rouge and The Great Gatsby, Baz Luhrmann sparkled on a smaller stage in his Australian sleeper hit Strictly Ballroom, a nifty, lower-budgeted, but still flashy and imaginative little gem of a musical movie.

It’s Lurhmann’s romantic look at a small time Australian dance contest and at the gorgeous couple (Paul Mercurio and Tara Morice) who break the rules, fashion some fancy new steps and set the show on its ear. (The movie’s signature tune is Cyndi Lauper’s “Time After Time.”) The whole show is pretty, exhilarating and fun to watch — and so is the wannabe star couple. Of course, they’re no Fred and Ginger. But then, nobody is.

Extras: Commentary; Documentary with Luhrmann; Featurette; Deleted scene; Design Gallery.

CLOAK AND DAGGER (Three Stars)

U.S.: Fritz Lang, 1946 (Olive).

Fritz Lang was at his Hollywood studio best in the 40s, especially in the middle of the decade, when he made Ministry of Fear and The Woman in the Window (both 1944) and Scarlet Street (1945) — all films with good scripts or strong literary sources that Lang made even more special. On the other hand, Cloak and Dagger, the glossy World War II spy drama that Lang directed a year later (1946), is well-directed and supremely well-shot (by Sol Polito), but not that well-written. It’s an unimaginative intrigue-as-usual film noir that, while not bad, isn’t too high in the Lang canon.

It’s an unabashed formula picture, with a professional but hackneyed boy-meets-girl plot. American Spy Gary Cooper (a.k.a. Professor Alvah Jesper) and resistance fighter Lilli Palmer flirt and run in the waning days of World War II, in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, where Coop has been parachuted to prevent wizened little professor Vladimir Sokoloff (Polda) from inventing the atom bomb for Hitler before the Manhattan project back home. Coop’s mission: snatch the scientist and fly him out — while doing his best to score points with Palmer, an Austrian-German actress playing an Italian partisan named Gina. Helping out is another dashing partisan, Pinkie, played by Robert Alda, who had just starred as George Gershwin in the 1945 bio-musical Rhapsody in Blue and might have better employed as Coop’s romantic rival.

Cloak and Dagger is hamstrung by a second-rate script, as clichéd as its title, even though it was written by two celebrated Hollywood lefties (and later members of the Hollywood Ten) Ring Lardner, Jr. and Albert Maltz, and is based on a story by Boris Ingster, the director of the 1940 film noir classic Stranger on the Third Floor. With all that talent, there’s nothing particularly wrong with Cloak and Dagger, but nothing particularly right with it either: little that’s very memorable or exciting, even while Coop is racing though Europe, one step ahead of the Gestapo. (One exception: the nerve-rnding, near-silent fight-to-the-death between Coop and a suspicious Nazi, with a bustling street outside.)

The picture’s major flaw is that it doesn’t have a continuous, effective villain, like Dan Duryea in Lang’s three previous pictures. One good, suave heavy (maybe like Palmer’s husband Rex Harrison) could have given Coop something stronger to play against, and juiced up the show. But perhaps we expect too much here of the auteur of Metropolis and M, and maybe too much of Gary Cooper, who despite his problems impersonating a nuclear professor and German-speaking spy, does still manage to look super-duper. By the way, if you can spot any Communist propaganda in this movie, you may have a future on Fox News.

THE GUILT TRIP (Two and a Half Stars)

U.S.: Anne Fletcher, 2012 (Paramount)

The Guilt Trip they call it? Well, in this movie, Barbra Streisand, bless her, plays a nice Jewish mother named Joyce Brewster and Seth Rogen plays her not-so-nice Jewish, or at least half-Jewish, son Andy — and for this movie I have just one word: Meshuggener! No, that’s not nice. The movie tried. Its heart was in the right place. It’s about a mother and son — a nice picture for this holiday season, when a mother is lucky if she hears from her son, once — and the two of them are driving cross-country together while he peddles his invention, this super-duper cleaning product that he invented, called Sci-o-clean or Schmatzo-Clean or something. I’m not kidding. It sounds like Hollywood mishigoss, I know. But Andy is taking his cleaner to these big corporations all over the country, a cleaner they make out of coconuts and soy sauce, and Joyce, the mother is there for, you now, moral support. Moral support! We should all have such moral support when we drive cross-country to peddle our coconuts.

Would you like a little chicken soup? It’s no trouble; it’s just in the rerigerator. No, it’s no trouble; don‘t worry about it. Such a worrier, like my cousin Si….So, anyway the two of them, Joyce the mother and Andy the son, they drive from Virginia to Texas to Santa Fe to San Francisco (so economically too, in a compact car and with what do you call them, process shots out the window). And, on the way they quibble and they kvetch. He quibbles and she kvetches. And he screams. Oy! A little too much, maybe.

One thing I have to ask. Barbra Streisand, she‘s a lovely lady still, still– with a lovely voice. (She’s 70, really? My God, she looks 50.) So why didn’t they give her a song to sing? They’re embarrassed maybe that she once played Fanny Brice in that movie Funny Girl and she sang “People who need people?” They’re embarrassed that she could make people cry with her singing? This movie should have a song and a scene half as good as “People, people who need people, are the luckiest people…”. I’m serious. Or half as good as “Second Hand Rose.” “Even Jake the plumbuh, he’s the man I adoah. He had the noive ta tell me…“

Okay, okay, I’ll stop singing, Mr, Caruso. Mr. Pavarotti, Mr. Golden Throat Cantor Sirota Placido Domingo, whom nobody can sing to when he’s around. But this Guilty Trip or whatever, it should even have a song as good as, you should pardon the expression, “You Ain’t Nothing but a Hound Dog” by Mr. Elvis the Pelvis Presley. And you know, I bet Miss Streisand could probably make us cry with that one too. “Hound dogs, hound dogs who need hound dogs…” Okay, okay. Such a sense of humor you don’t have.

The movie, too. I mean it. Miss Barbra, she‘s a funny lady, too, still, so why didn’t they give her a joke to tell? Ot a joke that was, God forgive me, funny, at least. I’m serious. Or rather The Guilty Trip is serious, too serious. The jokes in this movie, they give you the idea the writer and the director think it would be disrespectful to laugh too hard. Can you imagine? They have a perfectly good funny actress playing the mother, Miss Barbra Streisand, and a perfectly good funny actor playing the son, Mr, Seth Rogen, and still the best joke they can come up with is Mrs. Brewster trying to win a contest and she should, forgive me, make a pig out of herself eating a four-and-a-half pound steak at some fancy Texas steakhouse called Cattleman’s Ranch or The Cattle Kettle or something, full of, what do you call them, cowpokes. Cowpokers. Cowboys. Like Mr. Ben Graw, this cowpuncher played by Mr. Brett Cullen, who likes Joyce and who reminded me a little of Cousin Randy the laminectomy specialist. A little. Whatever. Eat your soup; it’s getting cold.

Anyway, Miss Barbra. She eats. She’s almost done. She stops. No explanation, except maybe you know, she feels queasy. This is as good as they’ve got? This is a big fancy-schmancy expensive Hollywood joke? A joke about almost vomiting? And as for that contest, that mishigoss, that so-called prize: that’s all she gets for eating, God help us, a four-, five-pound steak with a salad and potatoes and biscuits and some kind of dessert? That’s all those cheapskate cowpokers give her as a prize, is that when she eats it all, she gets one, you should excuse the expression, lousy free dinner? And maybe some Pepto? They should give her free steaks till the cows come home, and they should give it to everybody in their so-called phony contests, except of course your cousin Diana, the Greenwich Village Vegan, God bless her. (Eat your soup; it looks lonely sitting there. Be polite.) Chiselers, that’s what they are. In the script I mean. I know none of it really happened, thank you very much.

Then, Mr. Seth Rogen. About him, I was completely bewildered, I must tell you. Rogen: The actor who plays Joyce’s son Andy, who looks like my cousin Si’s nebbish son Ricky. Andy, the so-called son! You should excuse that expression too: Mr. Rogen, the star of that distinguished world-renowned moving picture, Knocked Up. What does he do now that he’s not running around, you should excuse the expression, knocking people up? Knocking ladies up?

He yells at his mother. He insults his mother. He’s embarrassed by his mother. His mother who gave him life and cooked his meals and cleaned up his messy room and made sure he didn’t walk to school with his pants on backwards and his hat upside down. For this– Mr, Fancy Schmancy Seth Rogen — you scream and carry on like your mother committed some kind of crime? Such a son as that, he should be ashamed. He should be eating her steak for her. For shame, Mr. Fancy Schmancy Seth Rogen. I hope some day when you knock some more people up, you should have such a son as that.

You know what would have saved this Guilty Trip for me? If at the end, when they have those credits that go on forever — like Cousin Si’s second wife Mabel or Uncle Bert talking about his gout — they’d had Miss Streisand sing “I Left My Heart in San Francisco.“ Wouldn’t that have been nice? They could have brought in Mr. Tony Bennett, I’m sure they’re friends, to sing it with her. Such a song: perfect for her. It would have given people a nice feeling when they left the theater.

What? You think it’s corny? Corny, he says? Thank you Mr. New York sophisticate Top Ten David Letterman. Like nobody wants to hear Barbra Streisand and Tony Bennett sing a wonderful song about the city San Francisco where the mother Joyce and son Andy end up? Well, maybe. The world has changed is all I can say. Wait a minute. You say I’m all confused? This movie isn‘t The Guilty Trip; It‘s The Guilt Trip? Like that‘s some big difference? Oh, I see.

You say The Guilt Trip is actually a tribute to the screenwriter’s mother — written, by the cartoon writer, Mr. Dan Fogleberg, excuse me, Dan Fogleman — who wrote those nice cartoons, Cars and Bolt and Tangled. And he wrote this movie about his own mother, Joyce, and named Miss Streisand‘s character Joyce after her. You’re sure? Andy the character is actually taking his mother across country while he peddles his coconuts, because he wants to have a reunion between Joyce and her old boyfriend, the man she gave up for Andy’s father, also named Andy? And there’s a surprise ending? Oh sure there is, like these people in Hollywood can keep a secret.

Well, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. If Mr. Fogle-Schmogel writes about what he did to help his mother, he must be a nice boy. At heart. These movies today are so confusing, I think maybe they even confuse the people who make them. So I‘m sorry, sorry. Sorry to you, Miss Streisand, Sorry to you Mr. Fancy Schmancy Seth Rogen. (Yes, I won’t call him fancy-schmancy any more. ) Sorry to you, Mr Unfancy Rogen. Sorry to Miss Director Anne Fletcher. (Did she really make a movie about 27 Dresses? How industrious!)

As for Mr, Dan Fogleman. Well, God bless him, I say. There’s a son. Not like some sons I could name who can never pick up the phone and dial a number or answer a phone call when somebody makes it across country, at all that expense? No, he wouldn’t treat his mother like that. Instead, he makes a movie about her, even if it’s sometimes hard to understand. Or sometimes even corny. What can I say? Nothing. No, one thing I do say. Meshuggener!

Not the movie. Somebody fancy-schmancy right here in this room, right here within my earshot. I say no more. My lips are sealed. Eat your soup. By now, Mr. I Know What’s Corny, it’s so cold you could make chicken-flavored ice cubes out of it.

Extras: None.

MAMA (Three Stars)

U.S.:Andy Muschietti, 2013 (Universal)

Remember the good old, bad old days of movie horror, when screen frightmeisters didn’t always seem to try to turn our stomachs to make our hair stand on end? Remember when blood and gore and paranormal high jinks and lousy, deliberately amatuerish-looking camerawork and weren‘t the names of the game, when audiences could get scared at a moviewithout also getting revolted? Some pretty good movies helped make that grisly transition — shows like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Night of the Living Dead and Nightmare on Elm Street, and even not so good but interesting pictures like The Blair Witch project– but that doesn’t mean those same movies weren’t also resposnible for an awful lot of crap.

Mama is something of a throwback, and at times a stunning one.. At times, it’s not stunning at all. But at its best, this state-of-the-art modern ghost story — another scare saga from the Guillermo Del Toro factory — recalls those earlier, less bloody days of fear and (not necessarily) loathing, when horror films were made for adults, and when they could even strive to be a little subtle, and literate. Filled with elegant, spooky images of otherworldly phantasms plaguing fairly real-seeming people, Mama spins a yarn about two little feral girls, Victoria and Lilly, left in the forest in a shabby cabin after their distraught father (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) freaks out, following a financial wipe-out, and hustles the girls out to the forest. His goal: trying to kill them both, followed by his own suicide.

The girls, however are rescued by a sinister-looking wraith-thing that is (or was) apparently their mother (played by Javier Botet, with lots of CGI). And five years later — after somehow surviving in the woods by themselves for all that time — the girls are discovered and brought back to civilization. (Unfortunately, there are still financial woes, thanks to the U. S. Congress at its most monstrous.)

So the lassies are set up in a fairly posh home by an inquisitive doctor interested in their psychology (Daniel Kasha as Dr. Dreyfuss). They are cared for by their late father’s brother, a Bohemian-style artist named Lucas (Coster-Waldau in the second stanza of a double part) and his punky-pretty girl band girlfriend Annabel (Jessica Chastain). Needless to say, the two little girls – the tamer and more civilized Victoria (Megan Charpentier) and younger, wilder Lilly (Isabelle Nelisse) — prove quite a handful. Not as much of s handful, though, as the flying, swooping, totally spooky creature who is apparently their very protective mom. Or what she’s become.

I’m not partial to a lot of modern horror movies, especially the ones with a big Ick-factor. But I like most of Del Toro’s work, and I enjoyed this one. Del Toro was the executive producer here, and the director-cowriter, making his feature debut, is Andy Muschietti. He’s no Del Toro, but he’s an imaginative chap with a very spiffy visual sense, Besides, starting Mama off with a big financial crisis demonstrates that the movie has a good sense of what’s genuinely scary about contemporary society — and who the real monsters are. Also, having a heroine who’s a punk rocker of sorts shows both that the movie is somewhat hip and that Jessica Chastain — an Oscar favorite this year for her work as the CIA Bin Laden hunter in “Zero Dark Thirty“ — can be an amazingly versatile actress.

Playing Annabel, she attracts and repels (a little) and stirs things up. She also gives us a sense of reality, and her believable reactions to all the spooky things swirling around her pull us right into the action. So do the wild responses of Charpentier and Lelisse as Victoria and Lilly, two of the scariest little girls on screen since the blank-faced little ghosts in Stanley Kubrick’s and Stephen King’s chilling classic The Shining.

Watching Mama, I was occasionally reminded of another classic movie horror tale about a little girl and her mother, producer Val Lewton’s and co-director Robert Wise’s 1944 low-budget Curse of the Cat People. Mama isn’t low-budget, and it doen’t have any cat people, cursed or not, but, at times, it scares you without creeping you out. So does Jessica Chastain.

Wilmington on DVDs: Silver Linings Playbook

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013

 

DVD PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK (Three and a Half Stars)

U.S.: David O. Russell, 2012 (Starz/Anchor Bay)

 

Silver Linings Playbook is a semi-Capraesque, semi-Paddy Chayefskyesque drama/comedy for the new millennium: a smart and amusing movie felicitously co-starring Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jackie Weaver, Julia Stiles, and Chris Tucker in roles meatier than we usually expect and played with great big dollops of joyous spontaneity, live-wire energy, bristling wit and just a touch of psychological darkness.  A multiple Oscar nominee, it was definitely one of 2012′s best romantic comedies and Cooper and Lawrence one of the year’s shining couples. It was a little overrated. But movie romantic comedies have been so bad recently, that it’s gratifying ing to find one worth overrating.

The movie was adapted by writer-director David O. Russell from a novel Matthew Quick, and it’s about Russell’s favorite subject: a dysfunctional family. Here the family, the Solitanos, live boisterously together with their dysfunctional friends and neighbors, in a sort of semi-functional Philadelphia suburb — a likable but nutty community whose ailments and oddments include bipolar disorder (Cooper), severe depression and seemingly  loose morals (both Lawrence), gambling addiction (De Niro), adultery (Brea Bee), a penchant for jogging while wearing a trash bag (Cooper), and — the most inexplicable and frightening of these various disorders — an obsession with the Philadelphia Eagles getting into the Super Bowl.

At the core of the comedy is the emotional condition of Cooper as Pat Solitano, Jr. — a performance that vaults him into a some kind of new serio-comedy stratosphere. Pat Jr. is an ex-teacher suffering from that bipolar issue, who has undergone months of mental institutionalization after beating the bejeezus out of a colleague who was sleeping (and showering) with Pat’s wife Nikki (Bee). Sprung from the hospital, along with his gabby pal Danny (Chris Tucker), Pat goes back to the house of his parents: his salty Eagle-loving bookie dad Pat, Sr. (De Niro) and his tolerant mom Dolores (Weaver, who was the terrifying mother of the Australian crime drama The Animal Kingdom). Also around: Pat Jr.s bro-pal Ronnie (John Ortiz), who has a bossy wife, Veronica (Julia Stiles), who in turn has a seemingly very available cop’s-widow-friend, Tiffany (Lawrence). A nice therapeutic romance is on everyone’s mind here, though Pat, Jr., unfortunately, is obsessed with engineering a marital reunion with Nikki.

With Cooper, who zoomed to stardom in the epic buddy-buddy comedy The Hangover, and Lawrence, who conquered the critics in Winter’s Bone and then zoomed herself in The Hunger Games, chemistry isn’t lacking here. Cooper plays Pat Jr. with a mix of obstinacy and nervous intensity, plus a phony bravado, and a disguised vulnerability that make a sharp contrast with the unshakably self-confident stud he played in The Hangover. As for Jennifer Lawrence, she adds naturalistic comedy to her resume to go along with the mastery of naturalistic drama she showed in Winter‘s Bone and the heroic young womanhood of The Hunger Game.

Then there’s the acting titan turned post-Focker sitcom papa Robert De Niro, playing the meatiest and juiciest of all his recent papa roles. De Niro‘s Pat Sr., like his son, is a hothead, and he’s been banned from the Philadelphia Eagles stadium for fighting. But he still makes his living off pro sports betting, and as the plot thickens,  Pat Sr. enginers a complex betting parley that involves the Eagles winning and Pat. Jr. and Tiffany placing high as a couple in a dance contest — something she’s asked him to do as payment for her help in getting an illegal letter to Nikki.

This is all corny as hell of course — Strictly Ballroom crossed with Big Fan — but corny is okay sometimes as long as it keeps us laughing. De Niro, a master of dramatic improvisation, here shows (again) he’s also a master of comedy disguised as dramatic improvisation. He knows how to make us laugh (and to get us scared and make us cry as well). And so do do Cooper and  Lawrence.

David O. Russell doesn’t work often enough, maybe because he makes the kind of hybrid offbeat movies — these mostly dysfunctional family rom-coms, with hooks ranging from incest (Spanking the Monkey) to adoption problems (Flirting with Disaster) — that are harder  to get financed. But Russell can do something that often seems a nearly lost art in movies these days. He writes smart, snappy, funny comic dialogue that we can buy psychologically, and that the actors usually do with infectious verve and spontaneity. Russell also assembles fine casts — probably because they want to say his lines. In general he can (and does here), turn out the kind of adult, unsentimentally appealing and sharply funny entertainment that weneed more of in the movies. That’s what makes him a critics’ pet. He deserves it.

As for DeNiro, I’d like to see him in a few less sitcom papa roles, and a few more Scorsese-style parts. Then again, making people laugh — even at dysfunctional families — isn’t an unworthy occupation, as we learned in Sullivan‘s Travels. Neither is running book on the Philadelphia Eagles, though it might seem like grounds for institutionalization.

Extras: Deleted Scenes; Featurettes; Dance Rehearsal; Q & A Highlights.

Wilmington on Movies: Pain and Gain

Saturday, May 4th, 2013

 

 

PAIN & GAIN (Three Stars)

U.S.: Michael Bay, 2013

 

Pain & Gain is Michael Bay’s new picture, and, for him it‘s a departure. It’s a big, bright, violent movie, but it’s derived from  fact this time, (or at least from allegedly factual newspaper articles). It’s an ugly movie  about supposedly beautiful (or at least attractive) people whose avocations are making money and building trim, sexy bodies for their clients and themselves.

These good-looking but amazingly dumb protagonists, played by Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson and Anthony Mackie,  are  professional body-builders and would-be business studs whose role models seem to be Arnold Schwarzenegger, Donald Trump and Mrder, Inc. — plus some  strippers and hookers and would-be strippers and hookers. Their story is based, we’re told, “unfortunately“  on a “true story.” That  which means it’s a different kettle of clichés than Bay’s Armageddon or his three Transformers movies, lucrative shows that seemed to be loosely based on cocaine-style fantasies and video games and other action movies.

Bay’s pervious pictures, which made him a sort of movie prototype and whipping boy — a huge-grossing Hollywood action-and-effects specialist, but also a favorite target for serious critics — were rock ‘em, sock’ em teen-boy fantasies, about cities exploding and cars crashing and battles in outer space and wars with extraterrestrial robots and other blood-and-guts techno-daydreams of the kind that we‘re supposed to someday out grow, but often don‘t.

. Pain & Gain on the other hand, seems to be Bay’s idea of a low-budget indie, a sort of quasi-realistic drama ripped from real life, and laced with over-exaggerated satire. It’s a daring film in some ways, a movie that tries to present a dark vision of contemporary American society, and even to indulge in some pointed social criticism.

SPOILER ALERT (roll to reveal)

Pain is the half-demented saga of three nincompoop bodybuilders (Wahlberg, Johnson and Mackie), who take over a Miami gym, kidnap a slimy deli mogul (Tony Shalhoub as Victor “Pepe“ Kershaw, try to torture him into signing away his property, try to kill him, are more successful (if still staggeringly inept) in some other capital offenses,  and get chased  though the sun-assaulted streets of Miami by cops who seem only marginally smarter than they are.

END OF ALERT

Is this entertainment? Well, in some weird way, yes. I was entertained, and even impressed at times, though a savvy movie-going friend at the screening (who prefers The Golden Age) thought it was one of the worst things he’d ever seen.  Both of these, I think, are reasonable responses. Pain & Gain, is, at times, entertaining, and at other times, something like one of the worst things you’ve ever seen. What makes it both good and bad, are the viciousness of the story, and the fact that Bay and his writers (Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (adapting a series of New Times articles by Pete Collins) don’t supply the kind of moral counterbalance or perspective, you need to be able to laugh at a movie like this with a clear conscience. Or rather, they do have a moral counter-balancing character — Ed Harris as good cop turned private investigator Ed Dubois — and they don’t make good enough use of him. At any rate, Pain & Gain is better than having to watch Shia LaBeouf battling tinker-toys and fighting erector sets in another Transformers movie.

The three stupid body-enhancers played by our stars are Daniel Lugo (Wahlberg),an ex-financial guy  who believes in the American Dream (at least as filtered though Ken Jeong’s dopey motivational guru Johnny Wu, whose babbled pseudo-profundities include exhortations to be “doers rather than don‘t-ers“),  Paul Doyle (Johnson), an ex-con who thinks he believes in Jesus (but has his teachings somehow confused with the Marquis de Sade‘s), and Adrian Doolbar, an over-worked muscle-motivator who believes in big tits, but who has so over-indulged in anabolic steroids that his penis has shrunk to the size of a small peanut — which matches the size of the brains of  Adrian and his two partners-in-botched-crime.

This doltish trio, whose feeble-minded exploits are allegedly torn from life, are all good-looking enough to serve duty as movie muscle guys, but not funny enough (or possessed of a funny enough script) to make the intended dark comedy about them ignite. They are dumb: dumber than (but not as funny as) Dumb and Dumber’s Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels put together and, dumber than the U.S. Congress on voting day, so dumb (in fact) that they make Larry, Moe and Curly look like three slightly rambunctious Nobel Laureates. Pain’s threesome take bodybuilding and idiocy to some new level, a level that divides the audience. Could this possibly be the truth about contemporary America and its obsession with get-rich-quick schemes and the body beautiful? Unfortunately, maybe yes — though it‘s also a movie that often seems to be on steroids.

Wahlberg is one of the few big male movie stars I can think of, who doesn’t tend to overuse his smile, though it could be argued that if he (or his costars) started over-smiling in this show, they’d come off like maniacs. (Then again, they are maniacs.) Similarly, Johnson has been developing such a likable persona in his recent movies that  his fall into sin here, is almost disappointing. Mackie, meanwhile is given little to do but mourn his shriveled attribute (or shrunken schlong), and try to compensate with Rebel Wilson’s bounteous presence as girlfriend Robin Peck. The three (or four) are not bad. But Shalhoub is a little too strident as Kershaw, and I agree with other reviewers that the initially-cast Albert Brooks was a better choice for Kershaw. Then again, the Coen Brothers might have been better choices as writer-directors here than Bay and his scribes. And Harris, as mentioned, could have used more screen time.

Pain & Gain actually belongs to one of the great movie comedy sub-genres: the botched-crime yarn. But Bay’s show, unfortunately, is no Ladykillers or Big Deal on Madonna Street — though sometimes this movie‘s frantic, wild-swinging tone reminds you of the Coen Brothers‘ more farcical remake of Alexander Mackendrick’s masterful 1955 Ladykillers. One of the most interesting thing about Pain, as many critics have pointed out, is that Bay and his writers are savaging exactly the kind of attitudes and vision he seemed to be exploiting in most of his other movies. That doesn’t mean he’s paying for all his sins, real or imagined, or that it’s time for him to start adapting F. Scott Fitzgerald, Cormac McCarthy or Raymond Chandler. But it does indicate that, in trying for a new kind of audience and response, Bay may eventually start making much more interesting movies, shows that would have brought a smile to the face of  John Frankenheimer, although, if this movie does mediocre business,  Bay may  be urged, strongly, by people with purse-strings, to be a doer, not a don’t-er, and go back to the toy box and the exploding action movie and movies for teen-boys. Unfortunately.

 

Wilmington on Movies: Iron Man Three

Friday, May 3rd, 2013

IRON MAN THREE (Three Stars)
U.S.: Shane Black, 2013

In Iron Man Three — capstone of the trilogy of films in which Robert Downey, Jr. plays brainy CEO Tony Stark a.k.a. the robot suited super-hero Iron Man — Downey spends far more time out of his Iron Man suit than he does inside it. But that’s all right with me.  Downey, one of the most interesting and brilliant movie actors around, also has one of the most interesting faces (a sardonic deadpan and somewhat soulful dark eyes) and he’s more interesting when he’s not swallowed up in effects and robo-hardware, which is the case most of the time here. Iron Man Three may well be the last of the “Iron Man” series, but, frankly I was getting tired of those robo-duds by the end of  the second (worst) one.

After the series opener, 2008’s surprisingly excellent  (and best) Iron Man and its not-so good sequel, Iron Man Two (2010),  Downey has probably been encased in iron long enough. So has Don Cheadle, who’s back as iron buddy Col. James Rhodes a.k.a. (this time) Iron Patriot, and Gwyneth Paltrow as Tony’s inamorata/business partner Pepper Potts, who gets some robo-fashions of her own. Rhodes and Pepper are two more returnees from the first two movies — Jon Favreau as driver turned security chief Happy Hogan is another — and also back is Paul Bettany as Jarvis, one of the more distinctive computer voices since Hal in 2000. Favreau, of course, was also the director of the first two Iron Men, and he was probably largely responsible for the antic humor and humanism that made the first one so good.

The new arrivals in the cast include four very effective villains: Ben Kingsley as the Bin-Laden-ish terrorist (and longtime Marvel Comics baddie) The Mandarin; Guy Pearce as the techno-geek turned scientist/business stud Aldrich Killian (who was insulted by Tony 13 years ago, and has now invented a form of DNA weaponry called Extremis), James Badge Dale as Killian’s killer and brutal bad guy Savin, and  Stephanie Szostak as the just as brutal bad gal Brandt.

Favreau (Swingers, Elf) directed the first two Iron Men, but here, though he’s still in the cast, he’s ceded the directorial job to Shane Black — who became a hot screenwriter back in 1987 with the first Lethal Weapon, scripted some big shallow actioners (The Last Boy Scout, The Last Kiss Goodnight) and graduated to seldom-employed cult writer/director of sorts with 2005’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, a clever neo-noir dark comedy also starring Downey. The rest of the Iron Man III cast ( a huge one that also includes some last-minute surprises) includes Rebecca Hall as sexy botanist Maya Hansen, a   romantic rival for Pepper; a mostly boring U. S. President (William Sadler), who figures in the show‘s best action scene, which is in Air Force One no less; and a gifted but smart alecky kid named Harley (Ty Simpkins), who gives Tony some good joke set-ups..

Anyway, after the disappointment of Iron Man Two , Three is not bad — though the best thing about it is still not the expensive-looking 3D action sequences, but Downey’s acting in the lead super-hero role of Tony/Iron Man. With this franchise, along with The Avengers and the Sherlock Holmes, Downey is not only the biggest box-office movie star in the world right now (at lest for a while), but a great comic actor with the delivery of a stand-up genius, and a face that effortlessly registers irony, ambiguity and a soulful sarcastic glee. Downey, maybe thanks to Favreau, seemed to be doing a lot of dialogue improvising in the last two Iron Men — less so here — but he still can be as funny and engaging a spritzer as anyone since Robin Williams in his prime. In a way, Downey makes fun of some of the movies he makes, including this one, but he does it with a quiet gusto that’s more playful than mean.

I’m glad he lucked into this franchise (and the others as well), and, in fact the first Iron Man is my favorite Marvel super-hero adventure. But when they jam Downey, by CGI or whatever, into those clanking red and blue super-outfits and send him off for more superfights — as they eventually do here — they’re giving us too much of  a good thing. The Marvel gang may be loading up Downey’s bank account and delighting fans around the world. But they’re also under-using a talent that suggests Peter Sellers crossed with Charlie Chaplin (whom Downey has played on screen)  crossed with James Mason crossed with Robin Williams. They’re under-using Gwyneth Paltrow too.

Even though the Iron Many movies and  The Avengers made him a star — no, make that a super-star –  and even though they he may eventually get more brilliant roles in more brilliant (if not as popular) movies, super-hero pictures are not exactly what you want to see Downey getting trapped in. Iron Man was a surprisingly terrific movie, Iron Man Two a surprisingly misfiring sequel, and Iron Man Three lies somewhere between them. It’s definitely a show that delivers, explosively, what its audience wants to see, and it’s already the huge commercial hit everyone expects. But, perhaps because Downey seems more reined in this time, the movie tends to lack that something pungently extra that made the first Iron Man (co-written by Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby) so wildly entertaining and even moving, and the lack of which made the second (scripted by Justin Theroux) such a disappointment.

Iron Man Three is fun to watch most of the time, and I don’t see too much reason to knock it technically or politically — it’s done very well and it’s definitely Hollywood left wing, not neo-con, and any Downey movie is worth seeing, even when they‘re bad, which they sometimes are. But Iron Man Three is maybe neo-comic, because Downey, though he’s more vulnerable here , hasn’t been fully unleashed. And, though Black pulls a number of surprises, in the dialogue and elsewhere, the movie is  as repetitive as most late-chapter super-hero franchise movies — even Marvel’s which are usually well-cast, well-directed and state of the friggin’ art.

By the way, I usually stay in my seat for all the end-titles, because  I like to get the music and song credits. But this time, all of you should stay, all the way to the end and the last credits, because one of the show’s best scenes and  performances, is one of the very last things we see on screen. It’s one of those Marvel teasers, one of the best of them. Stay. Trust me. It’s Marvelous. (Sorry.)

Wilmington on Movies: The TCM Classic Film Festival

Thursday, May 2nd, 2013

The 4th ANNUAL TCM CLASSIC FILM FESTIVAL

If you love movies…

Then, even for  just a moment or two, the TCM Classic Film Festival can turn you into a 12-year-old again. A 12-year-old on movie day.

Picture it. You’re at Grauman’s Chinese Theatre on Hollyood Blvd.  The sun is hot. The   crowds kibitz and swirl around. The Roosevelt Hotel is just across the street. Fake Darth Vaders and imitation Wonder Women stand on the sidewalk and wave “Hello.“ The marquees beckon.  The corny but lovable black, red and gold ersatz Chinese architecture of the old, still beautiful Grauman movie palace towers above you, inviting you back to the ‘20s, the ‘30s, the ‘50s, the ‘70s — back to the Golden Age (or Ages) of Hollywood. To the past…which only the movies can bring back with such immediacy and richness, such adorable phoniness, such enveloping power and beauty, such razzmatazz.

Standing in the courtyard of Grauman’s Chinese on Hollywood Boulevard, you can do what we all tend to do, I bet: You can walk over the decorated blocks of  pavement  where, long or not so long ago,  Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford — and Humphrey Bogart  and Marilyn Monroe — and  Paul Newman and Joanne WoodwardClint Eastwood and Jack Nicholson  — and, this year, during the fest, Jane Fonda — left their marks, pressing their shoe or handprints (or, in the case of Jimmy Durante, his “schnozz”) into the then-wet cement and signing their names. And, I admit it, it still gives me a thrill. A different kind than the jolts or joys of decades past, but still a thrill.

I was 12 when I first saw the Chinese, a small town Wisconsin kid visiting Hollywood with his mother, who’d literally spent her last dollars to get us there. The movie playing at the Chinese that day was Walt Disney’s Darby O’Gill and the Little People (starring Sean Connery). Just down the street, at the Egyptian Theatre,  was the first run of Hitchcock’s North by Northwest (with Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint). I’d heard about both these legendary movie houses for years and I could just barely believe we were  about to walk through the doors to see a show. Seeing a movie, or a lot of movies, at the Chinese and the Egyptian, gave me a charge once again this year, as we (my friend Film Noir Blonde and I)  loitered in the courtyard, or soaked in the sun, or pondered the schedule, or munched on a goodie, or raced through the crowds on the way to another movie, at the Fourth Annual TCM Classic Film Festival.

These festivals started in 2010, the brainchild of the folks at Turner Classic Movies’ cable TV channel , and they’re really among my all-time favorite movie events. Of course, Cannes is classier and longer and more international, and there are other major fests that may offer more discoveries, and more of a survey of contemporary world cinema, and (let’s face it) greater snob appeal. But the TCM Classic Film Fest connects you more solidly and more joyously to your own movie-going past. It takes you back as few others can — cramming into four days (this year it was Thursday, April 25  through Sunday, April 28)   a whole teeming gallery of years of cinema history and movie love. From Buster Keaton’s The General (1926), with a live performance by the Alloy Orchestra,  to John Boorman’s, Burt Reynolds’ and Jon Voight’s Deliverance (1972), with live discussion by Boorman, Reynolds and Voight, and with many stops in between, the TCM Fest showed us why movies are such a glorious time machine (better than George Pal’s or H. G. Wells’), and why they’re also a fountain of youth and a celebration of age.

These festivals are, I think, a near-perfect blend of entertainment and scholarship. Up on stage, for most shows,  comes one of the highly knowledgeable TCM staff or those smart and engaging TCM hosts Robert Osborne and Ben Mankiewicz, to discuss the show and then, many times, bring on one of the original cast or the original moviemakers — a lineup that this year included Max Von Sydow (appearing with The Seventh Seal and Three Days of the Condor), Jerry Schatzberg (with Scarecrow), Mitzi Gaynor (with South Pacific), Coleen Gray (with The Killing), Ann Blyth (with Mildred Pierce and Kismet) Tippi Hedren (with The Birds) and Eva Marie Saint (with On the Waterfront), among others.

If you love movies…

How do you parcel out your viewing time at a film festival that may offer 70 or so movies you want to see (as TCM does) much less the several hundred or more, you’d have to choose from at Cannes?  Well first of all, you resign yourself to the fact that you can’t see everything, not even close. You decide what’s essential and squeeze in as many as you can — new discoveries mixed with old favorites, classics that you can now see again in gorgeous prints in gorgeous surroundings.

At TCM Fest, you can, if you start at the 9 or 9;30 showings and keep going until the midnight horror shows, catch as many as six movies a day, and still have time to relax and eat in Hollywood at Musso and Frank’s or The Pig and Whistle, and catch up with old friends and colleagues — and that’s what I usually strive for. At TCM, I usually go first for the movies I haven’t seen — but that’s selfish if you’re watching films with somebody else, someone who may not have seen as many as you have , and can therefore be introduced to something great.

My viewing companion, Film Noir Blonde, for example, loves film noir, but is so far pretty indifferent to Westerns — despite the fact that, as I often point out, a great film noir director is often (though not always) a great Western director as well. Witness Howard Hawks, Anthony Mann, Nicholas Ray, Budd Boetticher, William Wellman, Fritz Lang, Don Siegel, Raoul Walsh, Michael Curtiz, Clint Eastwood, and even Sergio Leone,  (I’d even include John Ford, with The Informer as his film noir entry. Billy Wilder is another story.) So we went to see River of No Return on Friday morning, because she loves Marilyn Monroe and Robert Mitchum and she trusts director Otto Preminger (a real noir maker).

And, as it turned out, she loved that movie too. The combination of the Canadian scenery (and canny process shots) masquerading as the West, the stark violent romantic drama, and, of course, the pyrotechnics shooting up between sleepy-eyed Bob and knockout Marilyn won FNB over — and our only regret was that we didn’t later catch Shane (which I’ve seen a number of times, but she hasn’t). I could have talked her into Shane if I’d pushed harder, and (as a fan of both Van Heflin and Alan Ladd), I’m sure she would have liked it. Maybe I could have talked her into John Wayne  and Hondo (in 3D), as well.

But, instead of Shane, whose big-screen beauty and excitement will have to wait till another day, we caught The Tall Target (1951), a Western noir  by another noir-and-Western specialist, the great Anthony Mann. The tall target in this case, was Abraham Lincoln, subject of a fictional (we hope) assassination plot before his first inauguration. Trying to foil the scheme is  a feisty New York City cop (Dick Powell) who’s caught wind of the murder scheme, but been removed for insubordination, and has to board the alleged death train without a ticket to try to save our greatest President. The cop’s name, by fantastic coincidence, is John Kennedy.

The Tall Target got mixed reviews back in 1951 (for historical absurdities), and has been rarely seen since, probably because, admittedly, it sounds foolish. (This was before our more outrageous contemporary era and the movie exploits of  Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.) So much for history. But we’re so used by now to Anthony Mann’s color Western classics with Jimmy Stewart (The Naked Spur, Bend of the River, The Man from Laramie), that we may forget how terrific how  terrific he and his cinematographers (including John Alton) can be in black and white noir (T-Men, Raw Deal). The Tall Target, outlandish as its history may be, is still splendid fun to watch.

Two more great noirs were also on our sked — First, Nicholas Ray’s superb, heartbreaking love-on-the-run outlaw drama They Live by Night, beautifully adapted from Edward Anderson’s classic Depression Era  novel, “Thieves Like Us,” and starring those tender, beautiful, movingly naïve  robber-lovers Farley Granger and Cathy O’Donnell (as the immortal outlaw sweethearts Bowie and Keechie), and those brutal hold-up guys Howard da Silva and Jay C. Flippen (as drunk Chickamaw and bad-fatherly T-Dub).

And second: British writer-director Robert Hamer’s 1947 gem It Always Rains on Sunday, a dark tale of a melting-pot London area, with an escaped con on the run (John McCallum), finding the woman he left behind (Googie Withers who, in real life, later married McCallum). Hamer, of course, is that talented but tragic figure most renowned in film history for Kind Hearts and Coronets, his delicious and bitingly satiric skewering of the British upper classes (and the climbers who want to join them), with Dennis Price, Valerie Hobson, and the eight-times-murdered Alec Guinness, whose eight incarnations stand between Price and aristocracy. Here, in Sunday, Hamer tackles, just as wittily, but with more sympathy, the middle and lower classes, including  London’s Jewish subculture, which plays a big part in the film.

When you talk of the heights of noir though, few peaks are higher than the 28-year-old Stanley Kubrick’s clockwork heist masterpiece The Killing. Adapted from Lionel White’s crime novel “Clean Break” by Kubrick and the nonpareil hard-boiled pulp fiction master Jim Thompson — this great movie boats a perfect script, perfect black-and-white cinematography (by Lucien Ballard) and a perfect cast: Sterling Hayden as Johnny the mastermind, Jay C. Flippen as Marvin the gay money man, Ted De Corsia as the crooked cop, Joe Sawyer as the good bartender, Timothy Carey as Nicky the hipster rifleman, Elisha Cook Jr. as the patsy bet-seller, and Marie Windsor as the femme fatale Elisha’s unlucky enough to have for a faithless wife.

Jonathan Rosenbaum argues that The Killing is Kubrick’s best film, and though I prefer Dr. Strangelove myself, I can see his point. Incidentally, I love Kubrick, but he deserves a knock for stiffing Thompson on the credits here. Stanley ungenerously attributes the Killing script to himself alone,  and fobs Thompson off with “additional dialogue by” — which reportedly disappointed and angered Thompson. Which it should have. Nobody who knows the work of either of these major American artists will believe for a second that Kubrick, a master of script construction but not of dialogue, suddenly became a dialogue genius after committing to paper the awkward formula talk of his amateurish 1955 Killer’s Kiss scenario.

And there was one of the TCM Fest’s best nights, a showing of that masterly melodrama, Michael Curtiz’s picture of James M. Cain’s Mildred Pierce, starring Joan Crawford, Jack Carson,  Zachary Scott and Eve Arden (all wonderful on screen, at the Egyptian), and Ann Blyth, as Joan’s venal daughter Veda Pierce, both on screen and on stage, looking and sounding lovely in her 80s — as she was warmly interviewed by Osborne.

One of the Fest‘s most unusual presentations, courtesy of New York‘s Film Forum‘s and Rialto’s Bruce Goldstein, was the 1929 ‘tween-silents-and-talkies The Donovan Affair, a murder-in-the mansion mystery/comedy, directed by none other than Frank Capra, starring Jack Holt (Tim’s dad)  as the brusque police detective who solves it all. The Donovan Affair was a highly unusual show because the sound track for this entertaining oddity, has long since vanished, and the actor’s dialogue was instead supplied instead by a live cast offstage, doing a bang-up job.

Goldstein also does Rialto pictures, a film and video distributor, and I hope The Donovan Affair, with this cast, pops up on it — as will, later this year, his new release of the 1956 French classic La Traverse de Paris, written by the famed French team of Aurenche and Bost, directed by Clause Autant-Lara, and starring Jean Gabin and the comic actor Bourvil. Gabin and Bourvil, unforgettably, play two mismatched companions: a black-market mover (Bourvil) and a free-wheeling artist (Gabin) transporting by night, four bags of black market pork across Paris during the Nazi occupation. Retitled A Pig Across Paris, this underrated dark comedy gem, revered in France, but long unavailable in the U.S.,  will be out on Rialto around summertime. And you shouldn’t miss it when it is.

Nor should you miss, if you ever get the chance, William Wellman’s 1934 pre-code gem, Safe in Hell, about a hooker on the run (Dorothy Mackaill), hiding out in  hotel full of horny men on a tropic isle. It seems like a safe bet for a TCM TV showing sometime in the future, though you probably won’t have the pleasure, as we did, of the lively and smart pre and post-film discussion  by author Donald Bogle, and actor-writer William Wellman, Jr.

A movie that should be more watched, and more celebrated, than it is now, is Jerry Schatzberg’s powerful story/portrait of life on the underside, Scarecrow — which won the Cannes Festival Palme d’Or in 1973, and still plays and looks great. It’s one of the classic ‘70s road movies, brilliantly directed by Schatzberg, memorably scripted by Garry Michael White,  and stunningly photographed by Vilmos Zsigmond, with two super roles for traveling buddies Gene Hackman (as hot-tempered, macho Max) and Al Pacino (as gentle, clownish Francis, or “Lion”). I hadn’t seen the movie for forty years, but those performances were as strong and poignant and deeply affecting as ever — as was the acting by the rest of Scarecrow’s first-rate  cast, including Dorothy Tristan, Ann Wedgeworth, Eileen Brennan, Penelope Allen and Richard Lynch. When movie lovers talk nostalgically of ‘70s American cinema, it’s movies like this that they miss.

Finally TCM fest offered us, in vintage 3D, the process in which it was originally shot, Alfred Hitchcock’s likeably talky and tricky 1954 film of Frederick Knott’s hit play about a ‘perfect crime” and its unraveling, Dial M for Murder. The 3D doesn’t really help the film that much, but it was more tasteful than much of the later 3D cinema of that period, and, for some crazy reason, I actually preferred the 3D Dial M, even though much of it just had Hitchcock incessantly placing objects in the foreground to take advantage of the depth of field. Star Grace Kelly, of course — torn between lovelorn mystery writer Bob Cummings and deadly hubby Ray Milland –  looks ravishing in any “D.”

What did we miss? Quite a lot, including two movies that we saw only in part: Joshua Logan’s 1957 movie of the James Michener-derived Rodgers & Hammerstein musical South Pacific, shown at the Roosevelt Hotel, with Mitzi Gaynor in attendance, and primo documentary-maker Albert Maysles, with his wry 1968 cinema verite’ (or “direct cinema”) portrait of American door-to-door bible-peddlers  Salesman.

The movies that we didn’t see, for one reason or another, were also a stellar gallery. Starting with the Opening Night Red Carpet special, Barbra Streisand inWilliam Wyler’s  Funny Girl with Cher on stage0, they included Ingmar Bergman’s art house masterpiece The Seventh Seal (with Von Sydow on stage), Leo McCarey’s 1935 Ruggles of Red Gap (starring Charles Laughton as an initially meek butler in the Wild West), Sydney Pollack’s’ prototypical 1975 thriller Three Days of the Condor (with Von Sydow again), the 1959 “Ben-Hur,” the 1925 “The Big Parade,’ 1973’s Badlands (with producer Edward Pressman and editor Billy Weber) , 1955’s Summertime (staring Kate Hepburn), 1946’s Cluny Brown, 1955’s Cinerama Holiday (at the nearby Cinerama Dome), 1955;s Lady and the Tramp and 1955‘s Guys and Dolls (both at the El Capitan), 1956’s Giant, 1963’s The Great Escape, 1938’s The lady Vanishes, 1955’s The Night at the Hunter, and dozens of others,

That was the fourth edition of the TCM classic Film Festival. May there be many, many more. If you love movies — not just art films or huge blockbusters, but both classes of cinema, and much that’s in between –  it’s a festival of wonders that leaves you deeply satisfied and gratifies. It only lasts four days, but it holds a few lifetimes of  what we most treasure in the movies

4TH ANNUAL TCM CLASSIC FILM FESTIVAL: OUR SCHEDULE

Thursday

The Killing (With Coleen Gray)

South Pacific (With Mitzi Gaynor and France Nuyen)

Friday

River of No Return (With Stanley Rubin)

La Traversee de Paris (A Pig Across Paris) (With Bruce Goldstein)

It Always Rains on Sunday (With Eddie Muller)

Gimme Shelter (With Albert Maysles, Haskell Wexler and Joan Churchill)

The Opening Night Party (Club TCM at the Roosevelt Hotel)

Saturday

The Donovan Affair (With Bruce Goldstein)

They Live By Night (With Susan Ray and Eddie Muller)

The Tall Target (With Donald Bogle)

Mildred Pierce (With Ann Blyth and Robert Osborne)

 

Sunday

Scarecrow (With Jerry Schatzberg and Leonard Maltin)

Safe in Hell (With William Wellman, Jr. and Donald Bogle)

Dial M for Murder (with Leonard Maltin and Norman Lloyd)

The Closing Night Party (Club TCM at the Roosevelt Hotel)

 

Wilmington on DVDs: The Red Menace; Jack Reacher; Gangster Squad

Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

The Red Menace (One Star)
U.S.: R. G. Springsteen, 1949 (Olive)

Is The Red Menace really “The Reefer Madness of anti-Communist movies? Or is that flattering it? Too earnest to be funny, too serious to be camp, too boring to be effective propaganda, this Herbert Yates-produced doozy from Republic (for which it stands) is probably one of the worst of the post-war anti-Commie thrillers, entertainment-wise. It isn’t even dumb enough be dumb fun — since writers Albert Demond and Gerald Geraghty know something about their subject. They have dialogue about Hegel, and a Red temptress has a bookcase full of tomes by Marx and Engels.

But The Red Menace has its moments. The movie’s “hero” is vet Bill Jones. played by Robert Rockwell, who vecame a TV immortal as Eve Arden’s shy teacher beau Mr. Boynton on “Our Miss Brooks.” Here, Rockwell’s Bill is a hot-tempered ladies’ man, boiling mad at the Government’s mistreatment of Veterans. He‘s right. He‘s also ripe pickings for the local Communist recruiting center at the local bar — which has radical talent scouts and a cadre of Commie femme fatales (Betty Lou Gerson and Barbra Fuller as Yvonne Kraus and Mollie OFlaherty), with whom Bill dallies before settling down with the belle of the cell, Russian émigré Nina Petrovka (Hanne Axman). But never trust a Commie. Soon comrades ar dying like flies and Bill and Nina are on the run, in a faked highway scene that almost makes Detour look like Grand Prix.

The director, R.G. Springsteen, was a Republic regular, who mostly made westerns, but has one gem to his credit, the 1956 rural drama Come Next Spring, with Steve Cochran, Ann Sheridan. and Walter Brennan. He can’t do much for The Red Menace, noirish hokum that also boasts a duped African-American (Lester Luther), a fiery Italian-American who isn’t buying any dialectical materialism (Norman Budd), a persecuted, poliically incorrect Jewish poet (Shepard Menken) and a benevolent priest, Father O’Leary (Leo Cleary) who’s ready to forgive Mollie O’Flaherty and everybody else, including Demond and Geraghty. The solemn just-the-facts narration is by “Los Angeles City Council member” Lloyd G. Davies, who also doubles as the movie’s Immigration Chief.

If this show had a little more humor — in fact, if it had any humor at all — it might have won a place in film history as the first, or most typical, or most inane, of the Rom-Commie-Coms. But not even Eve Arden, Gale Gordon, Richard Crenna, and the whole “Our Miss Brooks” gang could pull a laugh out of this script — though at least, in The Red Menace, you get to see shy Mr. Boynton coming on strong. Marx should be such a ladykiller.

JACK REACHER (Two and a Half Stars)
U.S.: Christopher McQuarrie, 2012 (Paramount)

 

Jack Reacher, the new guns-blazing crime movie thriller, starring Tom Cruise as the seemingly invincible title hero, comes out at the worst possible time for a movie with a lot of firearms: in the aftermath of the Newtown gun massacre. But it would be an obnoxious and often unlikable show in any case, in any time — just not such an obvious one.

In any case, violence begets box-office, or so Hollywood often seems to believe—and Jack Reacher is an almost ridiculously violent movie, so ridiculous that if writer-director Christopher McQuarrie had dreamed up better jokes, and more of them, he might have had one hell of a comedy. Based on “One Shot,“ one of a series of crime novels by Lee Child about Reacher, a 6’5’’ behemoth of an ex-military dude who lives under the radar, and emerges to solve crimes maybe just for the hell of it (or, in this case, to prove he was right in a previous case), the movie stars Tom in a role more appropriate for Liam Neeson or Dwayne Johnson, The Artist Previously Known as The Rock. except why should Neeson have to play every 6’5” behemoth kicking the ass off dozens of bad guys and tearing apart another city? (Pittsburgh in this case.)

The movie starts with a bang — five or six bangs actually, as a sniper blasts five strangers from a parking lot across from Pittsburgh‘s baseball stadium. When the wrong sniper (Joseph Sikora as Bart) is arrested for this crime, he calls out for Reacher (who arrested him for another shooting during the Iraq War), and goes into a coma, Reacher shows up anyway, convinced that Bart is guilty, and offers his investigative services to Bart’s attractive lawyer Helen Rodin, great great grand-daughter of the famous French sculptor Auguste Rodin. (The talented Helen put herself through Stanford law school by sculpting and mass-marketing statues of Arnold Schwarzenegger, thinking.)

No, sorry. I meant to say that Helen is the daughter of the famous Pittsburgh D.A. “Rody” Rodin (Richard Jenkins). Rodin is prosecuting Bart, and other mysterious characters are involved in some kind of conspiracy which will be revealed later. At that time, we will meet, to our astonishment, a cold, glassy-eyed maniac of a crime and business czar called The Zec, played by the great German filmmaker Werner Herzog—director, in better times, of Even Dwarfs Started Small, Aguirre: The Wrath of God, and The Mystery of Kaspar Hauser, or Every Man for Himself and God Against All. In this movie, the Zec earned his rep by chewing off the tops of his fingers to prevent death by frostbite and gangrene in Siberia (or somewhere like it)—which sounds like a scene in a Herzog movie, and probably tasted worse than the shoe Herzog had to eat after losing a bet to Errol Morris about Errol making his first movie. (Is that any less preposterous than the Rodin story?)

There’s also a car chase—the old-fashioned, non-digital kind—and several fights, one in a parking lot, often with guns. And, at the end, Robert Duvall shows up as Cash, a salty old Marine and jocular gun salesman, who gets in on the fight just for the hell of it—or so it appeared.

I didn’t like the movie very much, and not necessarily because of the heinous massacre in Newtown that preceded it. It’s just not a very good movie, even though, to their credit, the filmmakers try almost everything. Cruise takes his shirt off (and Pike complains). McQuarrie, who wrote very good, sharp, stylized dialogue for The Usual Suspects, seems to have decided to crank out stylized mediocre dialogue for a while, and who can blame him? Cruise plays Jack with a lot of charisma but no patented Cruise smiles — and who can blame him? He also tries hard to play six-five, but only manages five-ten, perhaps because Herzog forgot to bring along his dwarfs.

GANGSTER SQUAD (Two and a Half Stars)

U.S.: Ruben Fleischer, 2013 (Warner Bros.)

Gangster Squad is a well-produced but badly written crime movie depicting a 1949 war between gangster Mickey Cohen and a vigilante squad of undercover LAPD cops. Watching it brought back memories of the real Mickey Cohen, as I saw him on TV decades ago. He was a scary guy, but not in the psychopathic monster style with which Sean Penn sometimes amusingly plays him here. The real Mickey Cohen was scary because he seemed, in a funny way, so ordinary, so likable, like a tough uncle with lots of bloody but colorful war stories.

When I saw him, Cohen was on the Mike Douglas show, which had an afternoon slot, and he was talking about his meeting with Harry Cohn, the long-time head of Columbia Pictures, and reputedly one of the meanest among all Golden Age Hollywood execs (which is saying something). Cohn had called him into his office, according to Mickey, to ask him for an expensive favor. He wanted Mickey to murder Sammy Davis, Jr., who had incurred Cohn’s displeasure by having a (very secret) affair with Cohen’s top Columbia blonde bombshell Kim Novak. As Mickey told it, he listened patiently, then informed Columbia’s boss that he knew Sammy Davis, Jr., he knew Sammy’s father and family, and if anything at all injurious ever happened to Sammy or any other Davis, he, Mickey Cohen would find Harry Cohn, and blow his head off.

Did that story really happen? Mickey told it very convincingly, without any seeming pathological kinks or boastfulness. He obviously expected the audience to regard him well for presumably saving Davis’s life, and they probably, mostly, did. Somehow, by his air of seeming candor and his casual toughness, he had succeeded in pulling us into his dark world, and its deadly codes As for the fact that he had confessed to physically threatening a powerful movie mogul with a horrible death, well, Mickey Cohen was a gangster. That’s what gangsters do. That’s one of the reasons we keep watching gangster movies.

That Mickey Cohen story is more interesting, and scarier, than anything that happens in Gangster Squad, a movie so bloody and violent (superficially so) that it was pulled from its original release date after the Dark Knight massacre in the Aurora, Colorado multiplex, and partly reshot. (The studio cut a Gangster Squad massacre scene set in Grauman‘s Chinese Theatre and reset it in Chinatown.)

But bloodiness and violence don’t really sting unless the people are real, and nobody is real in Gangster Squad: Not the movie’s Mickey Cohen, whom Penn plays as a kind of cross between Gary Oldman’s Dracula, the Frankenstein monster and Robert De Niro as Al Capone in The Untouchables. Not the vigilantes — played as six clichés in search of an author by Josh Brolin as Sgt. John O‘Mara, the tough returned WW2 vet, Ryan Gosling as Jerry Wooters, the tough lady-killer, Anthony Mackie as Coleman Harris. the tough black cop, Michael Pena the tough Mexican cop Navidad Ramirez, Robert Patrick as the tough old western coot Max Kennard, and Giovanni Ribisi as the not-so-tough techno-geek Conway Keeler (a cliché about three decades early). And not Police Chief William Parker, the LAPD’s controversial head cop, whom Nick Nolte turns into a growly old patriarch. Nor Emma Stone as femme fatale Grace Faraday (Cohen’s girl, who’s also sneaking out with Jerry Wooters). Wathcing all this top-flight talent stuffinf themselves into these roles is kind of like watching a seven-layer wedding cake being stuffed into a Twinkies package — but that’s probably an insult to the memory of Twinkies.

The story is simple — which is probably exactly what the police-vs.-Mickey Cohen wars were not. But even though everything in the movie is painfully predictable, everything is also painfully unmemorable. It tends to dribble out of your head as soon as you’ve seen it. O’Mara does something violently heroic, which draws the attention of Parker, who proposes the undercover gig. O’Mara recruits the other five. His wife (Mireille Enos) is worried. Meanwhile, the film’s Mickey Cohen behaves maniacally; in his first big scene, he has a failed minion pulled apart by two cars near the old Hollywoodland sign. (Even that scene is forgettable.) The gangster squad attacks Cohen. He fights back. Bang. Bang. Jerry and Grace sneak off for hanky-panky. Everything keeps building toward the last big showdown. It isn’t worth the effort.

Ruben Fleischer, who directed Gangster Squad, has been mostly a hard-edged comedy director (Zombieland, 30 Minutes or Less). But one of the problems with Gangster Squad is that, though it’s frequntly ridiculous, it isn’t very funny, which was this script’s only real chance. One could watch Gangster Squad and come away with the impression that Cohen was Dracula, and that Parker was John Wayne, and that the gangster squad were the Magnificent Almost Seven. But the movie, even though it’s clearly a crock of crap, still doesn’t entertain you. Which is the biggest crime of all.

Wilmington on Movies: To the Wonder

Sunday, April 21st, 2013

TO THE WONDER (Three and a Half Stars)

U.S.: Terrence Malick, 2013

I. Days of Heaven.

To the Wonder is one of those pictures that either knocks you out or irritates you — or maybe does a little of both. At its best, it’s a cinematic poem, another film of wonders by Terrence Malick, the dazzling writer-director of those American masterpieces Badlands and Days of Heaven. At its worst, it’s, well, it’s a little full of itself, over-arty — and the kind of movie some critics like to knock to prove they‘re not snobs, not obsessed auteurists, not in Malick‘s or anybody else‘s pocket..

It’s a love story — about an Oklahoma-born writer named Neil, played by Ben Affleck and somewhat based on Malick, and it’s about the two women he loves (Marina, played by Olga Kurylenko, and Jane, played by Rachel McAdams) both of whom are based on Malick’s wives, and about a melancholy priest named Father Quintana, played with sad, sad eyes by Javier Bardem,in his saint-rather-than-sinner mode — and probably borrowed from life as well.

All in all, it’s another strange, poetic, puzzling. stunningly visualized, and defiantly personal piece of spiritual autobiography on celluloid, an ambitious pictorially stunning creation by an artist who makes movies as it the art form had just been invented, and he was free to do anything, try anything, but also by a man who’s hip to cinema technology and aware of other arts and literature as well — and finally, by a man who sees the world (in his films) with something like the newly opened eyes of a child (as a gorgeous, enrapturing place) and comprehends it with a child’s relatively fresh, unspoiled heart and soul. All of these seemingly contradictory artists are Malick, who, like Walt Whitman (another naïve and sophisticated earthy giant of a poet) is large and contains multitudes and loves the way the sun pours down on leaves of grass .

That deliberately unabashed artistry (or, to detractors, artiness) is not all that unusual for Malick. Though he’s made only six feature films in his 40-year career — Badlands (1973), Days of Heaven (1978), The Thin Red Line (1998), The New World (2005), The Tree of Life (2011), and now To the Wonder (2012-3) — Malick‘s style and point of view, the kind of actors and performances he likes, even where he likes most to place and move the camera (staring from along the earth up at heaven) — are unique and almost unmistakable. The sets are dressed marvelously by Jack Fisk and the land lit glowingly by Emanuel Lubezki, and, under Malick’s guidance, it all has a look both intensely poetic and intensely human — as unique a visual style as Welles‘s, Murnau’s or John Ford‘s.

II. Badlands.

What is unusual though, especially coming only a year after Malick’s big critical hit and Cannes Film Festival Palme d’Or winner Tree of Life (also semi-autobiographical) is the sometimes vehement and even contemptuous critical drubbing he’s received from some reviewers, mostly serious ones, for this new film: the scornful dismissal of the film’s ravishing visuals as “perfume ad pictorials,“ the charges of narrative sloppiness and incoherence, and the reiteration of that dreaded indictment “pretentious.“ Roger Ebert liked it, praising it highly (and correctly) in the last wonderful movie review he ever wrote, But it’s the kind of movie that alienates a certain kind of critic. Pauline Kael probably wouldn‘t have thought it was fun. (She gave a knuckle-rap to Badlands when that movie came out, though her editor, William Shawn, knew and loved Malick and tried to intercede for him.)

Never much of a popular favorite with the movie-going masses, Malick here still stubbornly doesn’t give them a lot of what they seem to want: laughs, linearity, thrills, triumph. (He does give them sex and violence and beautiful people.) But, because of his obvious lyricism and audacity, he’s usually been at least something of a critic’s darling ever since Badlands premiered at the New York Film Festival in 1973. With To the Wonder though, at least for some, he’s become something of a critical bete noire — a filmmaker to inspire fancy jokes. .He doesn’t deserve it. To the Wonder may well be his weakest film — though that still makes it his sixth best feature, the weakest brilliant painting in a brilliant gallery,

Maybe it’s too personal. Narrative artists sometimes stumble when dealing with themselves and their lives. The exception: when they portray themselves as children, as Malick did in most of Tree of Life — or when they view their own lives filtered through somebody else’s, like Kit and Holly in Badlands, But, flaws or not, I think Wonder is the sort of film critics should rally behind, and that more adventurous adult audiences should try to enjoy — unless they really want a theatre of Evil Deads and Fasts and Furious and glossy sex comedies, and slick carnage, endlessly repeated.

1t’s an unusual film, as much classical as experimental. In a way, it’s a simple movie love story, about two people who fall in love with Paris (where movie couples often fall in love), and then marry and move to Oklahoma (where Malick also once lived, and a rich location for a heartland artist) and where the marriage soon undergoes tumult and friction, and not the good kind (as movie romances often do).

The original couple — Affleck’s Neil and Kurylenko’s Marina — have their Days of Heaven, and then their Badlands, especially when Neil’s old flame, McAdams’ Jane shows up and Bardem’s Father Quintana starts brooding in his (mercifully) almost empty church. Marina, a Ukrainian expatriate with a ten year-old daughter (Tatiana Chiline as Tatiana) has the same first name as Lee Harvey Oswald‘s Russian wife. But don‘t jump to conclusions; To the Wonder has socio-political content, but more of the Walt Whitman kind than Oliver Stone‘s:

The movie has a soundtrack made up, in Malick‘s usual aural style, of snatches of classics and semi-classics (Wagner, Berlioz, Haydn, Part) all merging into a music of mutual and un-mutual attractions. Marina — trapped in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, after being brought down from the cathedral heights of Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy, France — is alienated and friendless. Quiet Neil is increasingly drawn to Jane, Jane to Neil and Father Quintana, sadly celibate, is drawn to Marina. And the camera is drawn to all of them — especially Marina, around whom it whirls like a drunken lover trying to encircle and capture forever his loved one’s special beauty.

III. Wonder.

To the Wonder, like other Malicks, has little dialogue and a lot of voice-over. Malick’s usual method, confirmed by Billy Weber, his long-time editor (though not here) — is to write and film the dialogue scenes, and then cut them down (like documentary footage) in his protracted, sometimes years-long editing schedules. Days of Heaven was once three or four hours long, and there are, it’s said by Richard Corliss, three different, complete versions (linear, impressionistic and the final cut) of The Thin Red Line.

Wonder, Corliss says, was so heavily cut that the film lost whole characters, including five played by Jessica Chastain, Michael Sheen, Amanda Peet, Rachel Weisz and Barry Pepper. I second Corliss‘s suggestion that all five actors be restored for a supplement disc in the DVD release, preferably by Criterion, as Corliss also wants. If that sounds a pretty pretentious thing to desire — well, so be it. I’d like to have seen the four-hour version of Easy Rider too, Hopper’s favorite. Not to mention von Stroheim’s Greed. Or Welles’ Magnificent Ambersons. So what if Malick is his own Irving Thalberg or RKO? We don’t burn celluloid with a movie on it any more, at least not in plain sight.

What the critics who dislike Wonder seem to dislike most is that the movie’s characters are revealed less though dialogue and acting than through the flow of images — which are, as Roger Ebert noticed, like the flow in a silent film: by a Murnau, a Vidor, a Gance. Speaking as someone who often calls for more, and better, dialogue and acting in movies, I can sympathize. But Malick has his style — and his style, even when it’s not quite at its best, is something to see.

Ebert — in that last brilliant review of a brilliant (and, in the end, very brave) career — also said that the actors in Malick’s film show the deliberately limited expressivity of he actors in a Robert Bresson film — and indeed Bardem at times suggests Claude Laydu, the country priest of Bresson’s Diary of a Country Priest. Silence…Narration. Music.

One can love something, a movie, even if parts of it don’t work so well. That’s what I felt here. The sounds in To the Wonder — especially the voice-over and musical pieces that both Malick and Bresson use so well — are crucial to the film. But the story is powerfully told through the images as well: those visions of Hell, Earth and Heaven that convey a world of gorgeous nature and passionate people, caught by a steadi-cam that keeps moving and whirling around them, Tilt up: the sky. The wonder.

Wilmington on Movies: Oblivion

Friday, April 19th, 2013

OBLIVION (Three Stars)

U.S.: Joseph Kosinski, 2013

I think about the end of the world more than I should, and that’s why I may be more susceptible to apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic (and pre-apocalyptic) science fiction movie visions. Oblivion, a stunningly visualized, yet dramatically erratic science fiction film epic about what happens after the Apocalypse, maybe, appealed to me despite some obvious flaws. It’s really two movies anyway: one good, one not so good.. First, it’s the long-lost progeny of 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Twilight Zone. (Good.) Second, it’s a Tom Cruise-starring killer thriller space opera about a weirdly fought rebellion on our ravaged earth. (Not so good.)

The 2001-inspired section, thanks to the film’s extremely talented visual artists (which include director/ writer Joseph Kosinski and cinematographer Claudio Miranda of Life of Pi) , is often extraordinary — especially if you watch it, as I did, in the huge screen format, IMAX, and get a chance to feast, full-size, on the movie’s splendiferous vistas. That’s one of its main attractions. Another is the acting (by Cruise, as well as Morgan Freeman, Andrea Riseborough, Olga Kurylenko and Melissa Leo, and still another is what may be those allusions to earlier (better) movies — on those space ships and talking red lights out of 2001, those sand dunes out of Lawrence of Arabia, those cloud castles out of Up, those abandoned ruins out of Wall-E, and those moody dreamy interiors out of Solaris.

The second part of Oblivion, which seems to be more conventional, or more big-bucks action movie-driven . is well-cast and well acted, but also both predictable and often befuddling. From the midpoint of Oblivion on, you can guess pretty much what’s going to happen next (or at lest not be too surprised when it does, but it still often doesn’t make much sense. This is one movie I really felt I should see twice, both because I liked the first half, but also in order to piece together the bizarre stuff that was going on in the second half, and, supposedly, why.

The premise is reminiscent of all those Twilight Zone episodes which took place in the (seeming) future, or (seeming) deep space Twilight Zone-ish, and where we‘re watching something rich and strange and often nightmarish, in a world that we can sense is going to change radically — and does.

On a post-nuclear war Earth, cosmic clean-up operator/sky-boy Jack Harper (the name of the Cruise guy this time) and his co-crisp British co-worker/bedmate Victoria Olsen (Riseborough) are two of the last humans left on earth, which is being evacuated for a new residence on the Saturn moon of Titan, after Terra has suffers the ruin and wreckage of 60 years of planetary warfare with alien invaders called the Scavengers. and is now basically a blasted wasteland, with its seas being drained for energy, and with a number of famous landmarks (the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, the New York Public Library) poking Planet-of-the-Apes-like, out of the sandy devastation..

Jack and Victoria are located in what looks like a greatest living space on Earth (and undoubtedly is): a Hollywood Hills looking dream home, perched on a pedestal and made of very vulnerable looking glass walls, called (in the press notes) the Skytower. They are spending their last time there, mopping up what’s left of Desert Earth, in anticipation of humanity’s impending exodus, partly from a huge nearby space station called the Tet. Meanwhile, nasty Scavengers, or Scavs, roam around menacingly, even though humankind supposedly won the 60-year war — or so Jack tells us in the opening Blade Runner-ish narration.

Appropriately, after following the orders of the mission’s Hal-like boss Sally (Melissa Leo), Jack/Tom cruises around in the Top-Gunnish cockpit of a combination glider and helicopter called a Bubbleship. He’s also a devotee of rustic hideaways with trees, and ‘60s-‘70s rock n’ roll, and old Earth sports history and literature. He , treasures particularly his reminiscences of the very last Super Bowl, and a sumptuously weathered old hardcover book called “The Lays of Ancient Rome” by the British writer Thomas Macaulay. And, haunted by memories of a beautiful woman with whom he trades dazzled, dazzling looks on the observation deck of the Empire State Building (Olga Kurylenko as Julia), he is about to meet a flock of other characters (mysteriously missed until now), played by Morgan Freeman (Beech, a rebel leader), Olga Kurylenko (Julia, the real beauty), Nikolaj Coster-Waldau (Sykes, a hothead) and to find out that neither he, the Earth, nor the Scavengers, nor Victoria, nor any of the others. Nor almost anything all, is quite what it seems, even if we’ve seen a lot of it before in other movies. “But soon Jack will realize that he’s not where he thinks he is. Not at all. Jack is paying a visit …to the Twilight Zone.

There aren‘t many movies around as beautiful to look at as the first part of Oblivion, and since pieces of that beauty survive into the more conventional slam-bang second part, it‘s worth a look — though I would definitely suggest that you see oblivion not on a normal screen, but in IMAX. Kosinski displayed a strong visual imagination in the critically bashed Tron Legacy. But this is his show — adapted from a story and graphic novel he wrote, to try to sell (successfully) this movie, and it’s clear he has more emotion invested in it.

Maybe Cruise does too. Oblivion, or at least its first part, gives a hint of the kind of movie — moodier, dreamier — he could try to make. (He might even try, for a change, something dramatic and realistic.) He doesn’t quite triumph over the forced ending — nobody could really, except Morgan Freeman, who, it seems, can survive anything. But the movie has its moments, at least an hour or so of them, and many new pictures don’t have even that much. The Twilight Zone‘s most frequent story formula involved madness or a nightmare that turned out to be real. This one doesn’t quite turn real, or even convincing unreal — in the end, it’s just another Tom Cruise action spectacular. But at least it’s not oblivious to the possibility.

.

Wilmington on DVDs: My Son John; The Woman on Pier 13 (I Married a Communist); Promised Land.

Thursday, April 18th, 2013

MY SON JOHN (Three Stars)

U.S.: Leo McCarey, 1952 (Olive)

Robert Walker swears to his mother (Helen Hayes) that he is not now and never has been a Commie (and he‘s lying), in the most interesting and memorable of all the post-war Anti-Communist melodramas: Leo McCarey‘s  fascinating  My Son John.  Walker, who had just finished making Strangers on a Train for Hitchcock,  has another plum sociopath movie role here: he’s John Jefferson, a seemingly brilliant young fellow-traveling academic and important Washington D. C. employee, who’s fallen in with Reds and become a spy.

Just like the irrepressible Bruno, John talks too much: unwisely spouting the Party line while on a visit home with mother Lucille (Hayes), who becomes increasingly distraught, and father Dan (Dean Jagger), who becomes increasingly enraged. (Dan the dad seems ready to kill somebody, maybe son John, if he hears any more about social justice and class warfare.) On John’s trail, and intensely sympathetic to John’s troubled parents, is Van Heflin as the smart and sympathetic FBI agent Spelman. — the kind of G-Man J. Edgar Hoover would have given extra duty.

Robert Walker came to My Son John  after he had just finished playing the greatest role of his career, as psychopathic rich boy killer Bruno Anthony, in Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train — and there’s some small pieces of Walker-as-Bruno in My Son John. Walker died (at 32) before finishing McCarey’s film, and McCarey (with Hitchcock’s assent) had to use part of Bruno’s last  scene in Strangers for his climactic moments in My Son John. (The actor dubbing Walker at the end is McCarey himself.)_

In fact, good as Walker is in My Son John, if he had played John more like Bruno, more madly and comically, and with more crazy zest, it would probably have been a better movie.  Ironically, McCarey was one of the greatest of the Hollywood Golden Age comedy directors (Duck Soup, Ruggles of Red Gap, The Awful Truth) — and he was also wonderful at poignant family drama (the devastating Make Way for Tomorrow). But he seems to have lost his sense of humor almost entirely in My Son John.

It‘s probably the soberest movie this brilliant Hollywood laugh-getter and big-drinking piano-player ever made. McCarey took his subject very seriously — to him, this is obviously a family tragedy — and Hayes is sometimes quite moving as the fear-stricken mama. But Jagger, as John’s wild-eyed dad, who can’t stand Commies and would truly rather be Dead than Red (or wish that very fate on his Commie-loving son),  is too often corny and even maniacal. Jagger is playing a true-blue American, but he portrays Dan Jefferson as such a potentially murderous fellow, I almost wouldn’t have been surprised if Dan had turned out to be the real Communist spy.

McCarey was a genius at on-set improvising, and since he’s the only credited screenwriter on My Son John, it’s reasonable to suspect that the actors are improvising at least some of their lines. But they’re not trying to make us laugh (though Walker certainly seems capable of it again), and My Son John‘s very seriousness, tends to undermine its effectiveness as either drama or as propaganda. It’s an oddball mixed-dish  of a movie by a great moviemaker out of his métier,  a guy who was better off making us guffaw in Fredonia than trying to make us weep in Washington, D. C.

Extras: None.

 

THE WOMAN ON PIER 13 (I MARRIED A COMMUNIST) (One and a Half Stars)

U. S.: Robert Stevenson, 1949 (Warner Bros. Archive Collection)

 

This is probably the most famous of all the post-war anti-Communist melodramas — not for its quality or popularity (minuscule, on both counts), but because of its bizarre Offscreen history. (See below.) As for the plot: Robert Ryan is a business guy, labor liaison and blackmailable ex-Commie, married to a good woman (Laraine Day), but pulled back into the Party and its schemes by an old flame/femme fatale (Janis Carter) and the poker-faced deadly head Red (Thomas Gomez, in a rare piece of overplayed underplaying). The Commies act like white-collar mobsters; Ryan — a staunch liberal off-screen — plays his part like a good man succumbing to drugs or lycanthropy.

This notorious bomb is based on a very bad McCarthy-era anti-Commie script, full of clichés and propaganda, that Howard Hughes used to hand around at RKO, to try to roust out politically radical directors. If they turned it down (as Joseph Losey and Nicholas Ray both did), he usually fired them. Ray got away with rejecting it, Losey didn’t — and the director who accepted the project, and who helms it with a straight-faced lack of involvement that makes the whole movie seem even more ludicrous, is Robert Stevenson. In later, happier times, Stevenson went on to make the Disney movie classics Old Yeller and  Mary Poppins.

Extras: None.

 PROMISED LAND (Two Disc Combo: Blu-ray/DVD/Digital/UV) (Two and a Half Stars)

U.S.: Gus Van Sant, 2012 (Universal)

Matt Damon, who’s become a kind of classic American leftist movie star– a Hank Fonda of the new millennium — has gotten trashed  by some right-wingers (and some moderates and left-wingers as well) for his new film Promised Land. But I think it’s pretty good — a Capraesque tale about a big natural gas corporation trying to get drilling rights to the gas deposits in a Pennsylvania farming town that’s fallen on hard times. Damon, who’s one of our best actors and doesn’t always get the credit he deserves (because, these days, he gets slammed for his politics), plays Steve Bennett, a small town Iowa guy who thinks he understands and relates to these small town Heartland people, and has  a Messianic sense about his job.

Steve, a genuinely nice guy, believes he’s saving the populace from the current economic downturn, rescuing them from the shocks and disappointments  he endured himself.  And, like most small town guys who made it big and later go back to the heartland, he’s just a little full of himself. When he arrives in (the fictitious) McKinley, with his more cynical working partner Sue Thomson (Frances McDormand), he’s not quite prepared for what he meets (though we are): a general store manager who sees right through him; an active, vocal populace; a retired teacher named Frank Yates (Hal Holbrook) who knows all the facts and figures and the bad side of gas drilling or “fracking“; a wised-up sexy schoolmarm, Alice (Rosemarie DeWitt);  and a slick, one-step-ahead environmentalist named Dustin Noble, who beats his time everywhere, including with Alice. Dustin, who may have been named after Dustin Hoffman, is played by John Krasinski, who also co-wrote the script with Damon, from a story by novelist Dave Eggers (the author of the ironically, nudgingly titled “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius“).

In other words, Promised Land is a realistic left-wing social drama about something that might actually happen in the real, everyday world –  instead of, say, about a maniac running from house to house, slashing people to bits, or monsters from hell rising up from the ground and chasing everybody to city hall, or an invasion of extraterrestrials or gangsters on the run staging sensational orgies and bloodbaths. Not that I have anything against movies like that, if they’re done well (and they occasionally are), but I don’t think Damon (or Krasinski) should get points off (or on) simply because they try to make movies that send us messages about issues they care about, or try to create real people, or face real problems, or real horrors. There are things that don’t work in Promised Land, but we’d be better off if there were more movies like it. And I wish there were.

The director Damon chose after deciding not to do it himself, was Gus Van Sant, and that was a wise choice. Van Sant has directed Damon twice before in Damon scripted movis — in Good Will Hunting, the  Oscar-winning realist message drama about social class and intelligence, with Ben Affleck,  and in the wild, weird, arty, long-take  lost-in-the-desert fable Gerry, with Ben’s brother Casey. It’s obvious that Van Sant and Damon click artistically (just as Damon and the Afflecks do).

Visually, Van Sant gets the small town atmosphere, the look and feel and the rhythms of these people, with both naturalism and poetry — and I say that as someone who hails from the Heartland myself, a small town Wisconsin guy. Van Sant, from that hip city Portland, Oregon, gives Promised Land a humanistic style and feel, and though the characters are in some sense, obviously and even preachily conceived, the story works right up to the end, which unfortunately depends on a surprise twist that isn’t adequately set up and, in some ways, doesn‘t make sense.

Damon’s acting though, and his sheer personality, carries a lot of the movie. Like the left-wing Fonda, and like Fonda’s life-long right-wing friend Jimmy Stewart, Damon is an all-American guy with personality and a brain, and a kind of unspoiled boyish quality that beguiles many audiences. That quality shines through Promised Land, a pop-political ballad of a movie about what’s best (and sometimes worst) is us. Enjoy the movie, and Damon, for their best. It may not be a heart-breaking work of staggering genius, but it’s good, solid, admirable. It’s heartland stuff.

 

Wilmington on DVDs: The Kid with a Bike

Wednesday, April 17th, 2013

 

CO-PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW.

THE KID WITH A BIKE (Also Blu-ray) (Four Stars)

Belgium/France: Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, 2011 (Criterion Collection)

The Kid with a Bike is another first-class film by those fabulous film realists Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne from Belgium. And it‘s a beauty — a quietly naturalistc and tremendously moving fiction feature done in the Dardenne Brothers’ trademark quasi-documentary style, telling a story that seems as real as the street outside your window and the people walking or riding by on it — especially the kids with bikes. It’s also another of  the Dardennes’  stories about fathers and sons (like 2002’s The Son or 1996’s La Promesse), and about the dividing line between generations and also between ordinary people and lawbreakers.

The setting is, once again the industrial, largely working class city of Seraing in Belgium: the Dardenne Brothers’ home city and the location for most of their films since La Promesse. The central character is an 11-year-old boy named Cyril (played by the remarkable child actor Thomas Doret),  a child who has lost his father and had his bike stolen — and can’t adjust to either loss.

When Cyril gets the bicycle back, thanks to the kindness of a stranger (Cecile de France as Samantha, a social worker at the place where the boy lives), he both attaches himself to his benefactress Samantha and sets off on a quest to  reunite with his dad Guy (Jeremie Renier), who has moved to another city without telling him. But, just as Cecile is the unexpected angel who brings him familial love, there are two antagonists who frustrate his search: the local young criminal kingpin Wes (Egon Di Mateo), a young dealer who tries to recruit Cyril as a gang member, and Guy himself, who has intentionally abandoned his son (after the loss of his wife), and  clearly doesn’t want to see him again.

The Kid with a Bike consists mostly of short, swift scenes with Cyril racing though mini-dramas of social and familial conflict. The dominating image is the boy with this bike, caught in fast-moving tracking shots following him as he runs down the sidewalks or rides on the streets. These are very kinetic sequences — they will probably remind many of you of the special childhood sense of freedom and speed kids get in driving a bicycle. And Thomas Doret is a very kinetic actor. His energy seems boundless, his will indomitable. When Cecile is asked, by her irritated boyfriend, to choose between helping Cyril  and being with him, she actually chooses the boy, and we’re not surprised. It’s not a semi-romantic attraction, at least not overtly so. But Cyril is a human comet, and that unshakable will of his keeps asserting itself and speeding past the rest of the slower, more pedestrian world, What happens to them all finally is both shocking and, in a way, inevitable.

I think The Kid with a Bike is a great film. But it’s so cheaply made and so simple — in execution and seemingly in themes — that it’s been pretty much neglected in the U.S., despite good reviews and despite winning the Cannes Film Festival jury prize (which it shared with Nuri Bilge Ceylan‘s crime story Once Upon a Time in Anatolia). It’s the sort of movie that an average American audience, even an average American art film audience, might think was nice, but small or inconsequential.

Not so. Actually, the Dardenne Brothers’ film does deal with complex themes and deep emotions, and it’s profound in its grasp and portrayal of everyday humanity. Only if you ignore that humanity and those depths does it seem unimportant or minor. A good deal of this movie’s  powerful effect comes from its ability to make us see through the eyes of a child, and feel with the heart of a child — or, more accurately, think and feel in sympathy with a child who, because of his abandonment, is increasingly being thrust into premature maturity — in contrast to his irresponsible father.

The resolution of all these problems,  which I won’t described, conveys a very mixed strange feeling — and that’s when we may realize how much the Dardennes have come to  identify with — and have made us identify with — this kid on his bike and what he‘s gone through.

Doret is, in fact, an astonishing actor. Tirelessly energetic, thoroughly unself-conscious, yet chillingly aware of everything around him, he dominates every scene he‘s in — which is almost every scene in the movie. The cinema has been graced recently with a number of excellent child actors, from the younger Dakota and Elle Fanning to  Saoirse Ronan, and Doret is one of the best of them, a child  actor with an incredible sense of natural behavior and unforced realism — with the presence of  a little Depardieu or Brando or Steve McQueen. Doret, without a false note, portrays a boy  hungry for experience, not yet spoiled by the world and its hypocrisies, someone who believes in people as they seem, and is surprised when they betray him — and themselves.

The Dardennes tend to work with the same actors over and over again, and I imagine we’ll eventually see Doret again too. Jeremie Renier, who plays the despicable Guy  – and who shouldn’t be confused with the American actor Jeremy Renner – has been working with the Dardennes since he was a boy actor himself, in La Promesse, and he has by now an extraordinary simpatico with everything they do. The brothers’ other main player. in most of their films, is back again too: the chunky, bespectacled Olivier Gourmet, who has a style reminiscent of John Goodman‘s, shows up here in a small but memorable role as a phlegmatic bar owner.

The radiant blonde Cecile De France, of course, is  not only new to the Dardennes’ unofficial stock company, but a  major French and international star as well. (She co-starred in Clint Eastwood’s  Hereafter.) Yet, in a way De France’s film stardom and beauty, fit the movie as well as the old Dardenne hands do. As Samantha commits herself more and more to caring for and protecting Cyril, she begins to seem a kind of beautiful fairy godmother,  a surrogate mother out of a dream.

The Dardennes also rarely use music, but here they play on the soundtrack, several times, a heart-breaking passage from the slow movement of Beethoven’s’ “Emperor” Piano Concerto No. 5 –  my favorite classical piece in all the world. It got me here again, too, though the fast first movement (Allegro) of  the “Emperor” is the one I really love best.

The Dardennes, who began as documentary filmmakers, are among the preeminent dramatic movie realists in the international cinema today. I wouldn’t call their fellow multiple Cannes prize-winner Michael Haneke a realist, though he’s often a great filmmaker, and many of the current French-speaking cineastes tend to be either genre specialists or political (or sexual) naturalists.

The Dardennes, by contrast, always seem to be conveying life as it is, without any filters of subjectivity. We follow Cyril‘s journey but we’re not trapped in his point of view — or, seemingly, in anyone else’s. At the end, we’ve lived a piece of his life with him, a very important piece.  And we wonder and care about what will happen to him and to Samantha — or at least, I did. And I could never ride a bike.

Extras: Conversation between Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Kent Jones; Interviews with Cecile De France and Thomas Doret; Documentary Return to Seraing (2011), in which the Dardennes revisit locations from the film; Trailer; Booklet with essay by Geoff Andrew.

 

Wilmington on DVDs: Django Unchained

Tuesday, April 16th, 2013

PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW
DJANGO UNCHAINED (Also Combo pack Blu-ray/DVD/Digital) (Three and a Half Stars)
U.S.: Quentin Tarantino, 2012 (Weinstein Company/Anchor Bay)

Quentin Tarantino‘s Django Unchained was a surprise multiple winner at the last Oscars. but only because some of us may have overestimated its outrage quotient, and underestimated how damned entertaining it is. After Dirty-Dozening it up in his last picture, Inglorious Basterds, Tarantino pullls us here into a magical movie land that buff Tarantino knows well: the  wide-open, ironic, gun crazy realm of mid-to-late ’60s-early ’70s Italian spaghetti Westerns—a roost ruled by director Sergio Leone and star Clint Eastwood  and their “Man With No Name” Trilogy, but also home to a wild bunch of trashily enjoyable offshoots by moviemakers with lesser names and smaller guns. Like Sergio Corbucci, who made the original Django in 1966.

An audaciously enjoyable and horrifically exciting melodrama set in the Old West and the Old South of the nineteenth century, Django Unchained  churns out not so much the history of our dreams, or the dreams of our history (what John Ford and D. W. Griffith gave us), but the nightmare alternative Western history of Leone and his colleagues and imitators, from the revisionist ‘60s and ‘70s, when there were movies with titles like A Minute to Pray, A Second to Die. Since Tarantino has called Leone’s The Good, The Bad and the Ugly his favorite movie, it’s not surprising that he gives his new show something like the  grandly operatic super-style that was Leone’s hallmark: an eye-popping  cross-cultural technique full of simmering machismo and tolling bells and epic showdowns and Mexican standoffs  and explosive violence, with characterizations so lurid and unrestrained and colorful (in many different ways) that the movie often seems to be poking fun at itself. And us.

Tarantino’s latest  is a jocular, bloody madhouse of a movie that stomps on notions of political correctness as if they were bugs.  The  title comes from a sleazily baroque oater directed by Corbucci – an Italian Leone knockoff that starred, as coffin-toting bounty hunter Django, the 1967 Camelot’s Lancelot, Franco Nero. (Nero  does a self-kidding cameo here in a bar scene, but Vanessa Redgrave, Camelot’s Guinevere, is nowhere to be seen. And the real-life Django—the great French Gypsy jazz guitarist surnamed Reinhardt—is unfortunately nowhere to be heard.)

Instead we get charismatic African-American gunman-bounty hunter  Django (played with stoic hip and smolder by Jamie Foxx)—an embittered ex-slave saved from outlaws and schooled in slaughter by Dr. King Schultz (played, with another Oscar to show for it, by Christoph Waltz, the wordy Nazi villain of Inglorious Basterds). Waltz is a good guy this time, Django’s mentor, but there’s some high-grade screen villainy by Leonardo Di Caprio and Samuel L. Jackson, both of whom would have stolen the movie if Waltz didn’t already have it stuffed in his back pocket.

It’s a typical Quentin Tarantino mix: a grand expansion of the kind of movie that used to be slapped together by producers, Italian and otherwise, whose motives were mostly purely mercenary, and writers and directors of  sometimes high but batty-looking style who would do practically anything to keep the audience awake. We’re in the West and the South, circa sometime around 1858, and we see Waltz as the  dazzlingly eloquent German traveling dentist and bounty hunter Schultz save and free the quietly deadly slave Django (Jamie Foxx). Schultz wants Django to help him track down some elusive bounty prey, Django‘s old acquaintances the Brittle brothers, murderous scum for whose heads fortunes are offered. Django, hellbent on revenge, wants to find his still enslaved wife, the German-speaking Broomhilda (Kerry Washington).

In the course of their search, interrupted by numerous cameos by erstwhile stars and mainstays of that great cinematic era, the late ‘60s and ‘70s,  Schultz and Django wind up in the elegant but barren-looking estate Candyland, insane domicile of  the sadistic  Southern Gentleman Calvin Candie (Di Caprio), whose affairs are actually run by Stephen, a devilish  consigliere disguised as an Uncle Tom. There, surrounded by affable bigots, Southern aristocrats, milk-faced semi-belles and persecuted African-American  gladiators, King and Django infiltrate the beast’s lair and whet Candie‘s depraved racist appetites, by  pretending to be part of the local Mandingo slave-fighter trade. They also find Broomhilda. (A reference to Wagnerian opera or the ’70s comic strip?)

The movie is appropriately scored to great jangly torrents of old Ennio Morricone  music (and one new Morricone theme), and those of  his colleague Luis Bacalov—along with Richie Havens (“Oh Freedom“) and Jim Croce (“I Got a Name“). I also found it amusing to savor the small but pungent roles played by Don Johnson (as Big Daddy), and everybody from Bruce Dern to Russ & Amber Tamblyn to Michael Parks to James Remar to Tom Wopat to Tarantino himself. Amusing too is the movie’s cheerfully sarcastic version of the Ku Klux Klan, shown as Klan-robed dimwits who repeatedly ride into each other (especially Jonah Hill), because the Klan-seamstress misplaced the eyeholes in their masks.

You can say what you will about Django Unchained, but you can’t say it’s not both entertaining and some kind of  deeply personal project, or that it doesn’t have something to say (often stingingly) about American racism and violence. Tarantino takes a story and script that might have been written by Elmore Leonard or David Mamet after a few shots,  and directed by a Sergio Corbucci, a Fernando Di Leo or a Lucio Fulci, and gives it the kind of finicky attention to high style you might expect from a David Lean or a Federico Fellini.

One of the likable things about some trashy, unrestrained, magnificently awful  movies—trash done with genius and shamelessness — is that this kind of show lets you indulge some sleazy impulses, without suffering the usual consequences. That’s part of Tarantino‘s appeal. He opens up great golden veins of amusing garbage, enlivens his stories with his genius for dialogue and the fruits of his hip encyclopedic take on movies, and then just doesn‘t censor himself. Much. He makes us laugh, so we have a tendency we let him get away with murder.  I‘m not complaining about this.  Django Unchained is probably his best overall picture since Jackie Brown—partly because it has his best overall dialogue since Jackie Brown (which was based on Elmore Leonard), and dialogue is one of his strongest, sharpest points.

Is Django enjoyable? Indubitably, as King Schultz might say. Is Django offensive? Probably. Should we take it seriously? Maybe yes. Maybe no. Or, to be less wishy-washy, we should take the soul of this movie seriously, but not necessarily the body. We’ll leave that to the flesh-peddlers and violence hucksters and racists, who, in this movie at least, get their just desserts.

Extras: Featurettes, Sound Track Spot; Twenty Years in the Making: Tarantino’s XX Blu-ray Collection.

Wilmington on Movies: 42

Sunday, April 14th, 2013

42 (Three and a Half Stars)
U.S.: Brian Helgeland, 2013

“42” was the number that Jackie Robinson wore when he broke professional baseball’s ban against blacks playing on previously all-white teams after he was  signed by the Brooklyn Dodgers.

And the movie 42 is  the story, well-told and mostly true, of how Robinson (who is played by an admirable young actor named Chadwick Boseman) crossed that barrier, of what Jackie and his wife Rachel (Nicole Beharie) went through in the years covered (from 1945 to 1947),  of how he  stood up against taunts, jeers and verbal and physical abuse both on and off the playing field, and how he (and the people who chose him, supported him and played with him, finally ended the shameful history of racial prejudice that had blighted baseball since its earliest days—opening the door that thousands of African American players and other baseball players of color and other athletes in other sports have gone through ever since—a roster that includes many of the players I liked best when I used to follow the game  as a kid,  baseballers like Henry Aaron, Willie Mays, Minnie Minoso and Roberto Clemente.

It’s also the chronicle, filmed by writer-director Brian Helgeland,  of a lesser-known hero named Branch Rickey. Rickey (Harrison Ford) was general manager of the Dodgers in 1945 and he was the executive who conceived and masterminded Robinson’s entry into the major leagues, handpicking him to be the player who took on the job of cracking the racial barrier, braved the abuse and blazed the trail—and who had to have the talent, toughness and temperament to survive it all.

Rickey was 65 when he chose Robinson (a multi-sport star at UCLA) and Robinson was 26 when he signed the contract, but the movie makes them a well-matched, intuitively-connected team (as do Boseman and Ford). Rickey, whom Ford plays as a tough old man with a gravelly voice and a dry, candid wit, comes across as a guy with lots of baseball savvy, but also with a burning sense of fair play and righteous indignation. Boseman plays Jackie as a tough, ambitious young kid with a similar send of justice and outrage, who wants to play and seizes the chance Rickey gives him.

The movie  covers 1945 to 1947, which begin with Robinson still playing for the Negro leagues in Kansas City, and Rickey—far away in Brooklyn—cooking up his plan to integrate baseball, going through lists of the best black players in the Negro leagues, and trying to pick the young man he plans to put in a pressure cooker and make immortal. (Among Rickey’s other candidates were catcher Roy Campanella  and the ageless master pitcher Satchel Paige, both of whom eventually made it to the “bigs” as well).

And we watch as Robinson, under Rickey’s protection and tutelage, goes from the Kansas City Monarchs to the Montreal Royals (a Dodger’s farm team) and finally to the Ebbets Field  stomping grounds of “Dem Bums” (the Dodgers) — all the while having to cope with  the hostility of other teams, segregation/isolation while traveling through the South, physical threats, and the hostility of some of his teammates as well — with some of the Dodgers drawing up a petition against playing with him. The most disturbing of the scenes of racism, all completely convincing, is the Movie’s heckling session and grinning torrent of six-letter words (all the same word, beginning with “n”) poured on Jackie by Phillies manager Ben Chapman, played with utterly believable malice and a chillingly offhand  ease by actor Alan Tudyk.

Jackie Robinson played himself in the 1950 bio-movie The Jackie Robinson Story, with mixed results. (The Hollywood Reporter though, predicted a possible movie career for him — which is something that actually happened for the young actress who played Rachel Robinson, Ruby Dee.)  Boseman endows Jackie with a greater sense of quietude and an inner turbulence tightly contained. We can accept Boseman’s Jackie as a great athlete (a lot of acre great care has gone into the actor duplicating Robinson’s special playing style and mannerisms ) and also as a charismatic and determined figure — matched, every step of he way, by Beharie as Rache

As Ford plays him — and it‘s one of his best recent performances — Rickey is clearly acting out of pure conviction, a sense of justice and outrage. Rickey, who had seen racism in action all his career, simply felt that black players were getting a raw deal, and he wanted to right some of those wrongs. But he was also acting out of enlightened self-interest, Rickey knew, as a canny baseball man, that a lot of first-rate talent was being ignored and wasted. He wanted both to improve his team and to improve America — and he ultimately did both.

The Dodgers, after all  were no desperate, floundering team looking for a gimmick to create controversy and draw crowds.. They had finished second in the National League pennant race the year before (To St. Louis) and they had star players — including shortstop Pee Wee Reese (Lucas Black), pitcher Ralph Branca (Hamish Linklater), Dixie Walker (Ryan Merriman.) and second baseman Eddie Stanky (Jessie Luken) — as well as perhaps  the most colorful manager then in (or out of) the sport, Hollywood ladies‘ man (he was married to actress Laraine Day), Leo Durocher (Christopher Meloni) — the hard-boiled dugout philosopher who coined the phrase “Nice  guys finish last.”

These Dodgers were among the elite units in baseball, but  they were also cursed with their own share of prejudice (Walker was among the players who circulated that a petition), yet also blessed with tolerance and anti-bigotry as well.  Branca, Stanky, Durocher (who had to miss the season, after pressure group objections to his private life) and Reese were among Jackie’s allies. And Reese, in real life, was responsible for a gesture that became legendary, and that makes for the movie’s single most moving moment — when a crowd jeers Robinson (as was usual in his early major league days) and Pee Wee (who hailed from Kentucky) walks over to his teammate,  puts his arm around Jackie’s shoulders, and looks out quietly but firmly at the abusive crowd.

I liked 42, I liked the performances, including fine turns by John McGinley as the elegant sports announcer Red Barber and Andre Holland as another reporter and Jackie‘s guide, Wendell Smith). Moments like the scene with Robinson and Reese — which you just don’t see in most new movies (at least done that convincingly) — are a big part of the reason why.

The movie also tends to right a different kind of cultural injustice. Everybody who knows baseball (nd many who don’t) have heard of Jackie Robinson and the barriers he broke down. Relatively few people outside baseball insiders, followers and fans  have head of Branch Rickey  — and I’d bet that most of he young audiences that  the studios keep trying to lure into the theaters, haven’t heard of Branch Rickey and know very few details of this story — though these days, Google and Wikipedia may have whittled down that number.

Writer-director Helgeland  is no softie. As either writer or as writer-director,  he’s been a specialist in tough, knowing neo-noirs — ranging from, as scenarist, the excellent Mystic Rider and the even better L. A. Confidential (which won him a best screenplay  Oscar) to, as writer director, the putridly violent and brutal Point Blank remake (with Mel Gibson) Payback. 42, in his hands, is not overly sentimental or flaccidly heart-tugging. But he’s no automatic hard-edged cynic either. 42 is emotional and, at times, inspiring. Helgeland tells it will, with feeling for the characters, especially Jackie and Rickey: for hat they meant to their time and ours, to baseball and to all of us.

I don’t follow baseball any more — though I once followed many sports avidly. The Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa homer race and its aftermath helped kill my enthusiasm.  I‘ve rarely picked up a sports page in baseball season since. But I would have been happy as a hot dog and a Coke in old Ebbets Field to follow the Jackie Robinson story — excuse me, the Jackie Robinson and Branch Rickey story — as it unfolded in 1945-47 and as it’s told here. Sometimes, it’s good to have a hero or two.

 

Wilmington on DVDs: Ruthless; Despicable Me; Battleship; Lawless

Thursday, April 11th, 2013

RUTHLESS (Also Blu-ray) (Three Stars)

U.S.: Edgar G. Ulmer, 2013 (Olive)

Who is Edgar G. Ulmer and what is he doing in any pantheon, or semi-pantheon of world classical filmmakers? It’s been a classic nagging anti-auteurist question ever since Andrew Sarris introduced Ulmer to most of us in his guidebook The American Cinema. A cultishly admired German émigré film director, loved by some of the French, Ulmer has been called the King of Poverty Row,  a title both adulatory and a little mocking. But  indeed, frowsy-seeming Ulmer pictures like the legendary 1945 low-B film noir Detour, his 1939 African-American ultra-indie Moon Over Harlem,  the 1951 low-fi sci-fi The Man from Planet X, and the 1955 cheapo Western noir The Naked Dawn  seem to stretch the limits of the special kind of cinematic ingenuity brought on by minuscule budgets. In Ulmer’s undisputed masterpiece Detour, the reason the director shows a city street in one scene with buildings lost in the night and fog — a spine-chilling effect — is probably because there wasn’t enough money for a street set.

Ruthless, by comparison, is a fairly lush production, with  a multitude of richly-detailed sets,, visibly high production values and a cast that ranks just below A-level. Zachary Scott, the great film noir lounge lizard, here plays the ruthlessly successful  financier Horace Woodruff Vendig, a cad who cheats and double-crosses and sleeps his way to the top, and shrugs it off when a  one time ally commits suicide after waiting too long in Horace’s waiting room. Louis Hayward is his often-abused  and appropriately named best friend Vic Lambdin. Sydney Greenstreet is Buck Mansfield, a fellow businessman and rival who’s not quite ruthless enough. Diana Lynn, double-cast,  is the love (or loves) of Horace’s life, Martha Burnside  and, later on, a look-alike named Mallory Flagg.

There’s more.  Lucille Bremer (Judy Garland’s piquant older sister in Meet Me in St. Louis) and Martha Vickers (Lauren Bacall’s slutty younger sister in The Big Sleep) are two more ladies Vendig loves and loses. Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade to Basil Rathbone’s Sherlock)  and Edith Barrett are two more betrayed benefactors. And that ace noir heavy of heavies Raymond Burr pops up as Vendig‘s profligate dad Pete. All this for a director who usually counted himself lucky if he got actors like Tom Neal and Ann Savage, the doomed couple in Detour.

The subject of Ruthless is wealth, and its ill uses and hypocrisies and the price it ultimately exacts from the soul of the taker. (Vendig is now trying to redeem himself by philanthropy and institutional peace-mongering,) Its ambitions are titanic. The obvious inspiration for Ruthless, which was based on a novel by Dayton Stoddart (I know, I‘ve never heard of him either), is the film of films, Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane. From Kane, Ulmer and his screenwriters (including, incognito, Alvah Bessie of the Hollywood Ten) borrows the theatrical milieu of great wealth, the multiple flashback structure,  the theme of the sins behind great fortunes, the foil of the elegant humanistic best friend (Hayward) as Joseph Cotten-like conscience, the deep focus camera virtuosity, and even the anti-hero main character with three names.

In Ruthless, as in Kane, the past keeps invading the present. The young Vendig (played by Bob Anderson, who was the young George Bailey in It’s a Wonderful Life) sets his sights high early, falling in love (or something) with sweet rich girl Martha Burnside, one of  perky ex-Preston Sturges juvenile Diana Lynn’s two roles here. It is Martha’s father (Hoey) whose  largesse helps Vendig through college, before Horace dumps her for richer girl Susan Duane, played by Vickers, and then dumps Vickers for Buck Greenstreet’s trophy wife, Christa (Bremer) and then dumps her. Most of these ill-used people and victims have somehow wangled their way into Vendig’s mansion party at his hour of triumph and philanthropy and flashbacks. Like the Ghosts of Christmas Past, they’re in the house of secrets where Vendig’s best pal from childhood on, Vic,  shows up with his new lady friend Mallory (played by, once again, Diana Lynn).

 

Scott, a sometimes underrated actor (he was tremendous in both Mildred Pierce and in Jean Renoir‘s The Southerner), manages to show the warmer, more seductive qualities beneath (or maybe above) the ruthlessness of Vendig. Greenstreet will always seem miscast playing a guy named “Buck’ (unless it’s in  Flamingo Road). But he  has a good time as the vengeful ex-tycoon, as does Diana L:ynn (twice) and Burr, who can occasionally, though not here, seem like a second-string Greenstreet.

Ulmer, Like Joseph H. Lewis, can sometimes seem a poignant cinematic case. Each made a masterpiece that inarguably establishes their talent, Detour and Gun Crazy. Each was later blocked, sadly, infuriatingly., What if Anthony Mann and Phil Karlson, or David Cronenberg and Peter Jackson,  had never stopped making cheapies.  Would they too be cultish favorites? If the director of Ruthless had been Vincente Minnelli or George Cukor, or even Welles, we’d tend to write it down as a second-tier effort, which needed more work on the script. (After all, what can you expect from a movie where the heroine is named Mallory Flagg and the main character is named Horace?)

Coming to Ulmer — the low-rent auteur who persevered through often threadbare productions like Babes in Bagdad, St. Benny the Dip, The Daughter of Dr. Jekyll, the all-Yiddish Singing Blacksmith, The Amazing Transparent Man, Beyond the Time Barrier  and Isle of Forgotten Sins — and who even directed (and wrote) Damaged Lives, a low-budget 1933 cautionary drama about venereal disease — the script and cast and production team in Ruthless must have made him feel as if he’d migrated temporarily from Poverty Row to Paradise. (It says everything about this auteur’s career and timing that, in St. Benny the Dip, he got Freddie Bartholomew as an adult.) And while Ruthless is not as good as Detour, it does show that Ulmer could have functioned very well, if they’d let him move more often to the right side of the tracks. (The rumor is that the director was banished to the likes of PRC and Eagle Lion because he’d seduced the wife of a major studio bigwig.).

Ulmer and his charmingly disreputable and penny-wise films will always be special treats to devotees of black and white Hollywood, and it doesn’t really matter if he could have been better with better projects and actors. Almost anybody can be better with better stuff — and the one big advantage of working on Poverty Row is that they’ll leave you alone if you can get it done on time and on (you’ll excuse the word) budget. Ruthless has that sense of impending evil and doom that also marked Ulmer‘s 1934 Boris Karloff-Bela Lugosi horror classic The Black Cat. Even when the film becomes absurd — as in the fervidly ludicrous climax — it’s always fun to watch. It even teaches a lesson and sends a message –  the old Christian parable about the camel and the eye of the needle — ruthlessly. Now let’s go watch The Amazing Transparent Man. (I hear the reason the Man was transparent is that there was no money for another actor.)

No Extras.

DESPICABLE ME (Also Blu-ray and 3D)) (Three Stars)

U.S.; Pierre Coffin/Chris Renaud, 2010 (Universal)

Despicable Me — a 3D cartoon about a plot to steal the moon, a cad who redeems himself and the three little cuties who redeem him — is a movie that at times irresistibly amuses, and at times, pushes too hard. It also gives` Steve Carell, the “Despicable Me“ of the title, one of his best movie roles.

But mostly, it gives adults another good time at a movie that’s supposedly made for  children. The very fact that this movie puts a word like “despicable” in its title, a word that most adults probably can’t even pronounce, shows that it’s not scared of stretching boundaries. And even if Despicable Me – which done by Illumination and the French house Mac Guff Ligne,– falls short and  falls down at the end, it’s still a good show.

Carell, the 40-year-old virgin of the Apatow gang and the neurotic boss of The Office, here plays Gru, a fat, sinister little chap who looks like an Edward Gorey drawing on steroids. Gru, who’s bossed around by his busy-body Mom (Julie Andrews), is also the suburban czar of a bunch of bulbous, skittering insanely helpful little yellow beings called Minions (played by, among others, this movie‘s directors Pierre Coffin and Chris Renaud).

And Gru is concerned that his reputation for spectacular crime is being outshone by a new, lippy super-miscreant named Vector (voiced by Jason Segel of I Love You, Man), who has just swiped the Egyptian Pyramids and replaced them with huge, inflatable Egyptian Pyramid balloons. Not to be outdone, Gru shoves ahead with his own grand scheme, to shrink and steal the moon, aided by his own Q-style gadget-master, Dr. Nefarious (Russell Brand). But Vector proves an unscrupulous, just as Gru’s banker proves to be another greedy jerk. So, to facilitate his moon-grab scheme, Gru is forced, he thinks, to adopt thee little girls from the local orphanage — the adorable Margo (Miranda Cosgrove), Edith (Dana Gaier) and Agnes (Elsie Fisher) — and to enlist them and their expertise at cookie selling, to outflank cookie fiene fiend Vector. Can he remain despicable in the face of such cuteness in triplicate? Can ice melt in June on a Riviera beach?

All of this leads up, of course, to a race to the moon. But it’s not all that predictable, and it doesn’t end quite as you’d expect. Even if you can guess everything that will happen (spoilsport), the sprightly animation, the witty script by Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul and the deft voice-acting by Carell, Segel and Brand — and by Kristen Wiig as the orphanage meanie-mistress Miss Hattie — keep it light and funny.

Like many French, or French-derived cartoons, Despicable Me has a delicious, dark little twist to its images. Pixar, very typically American, presents a world of good and evil, locked in combat. The more urbane French animation often mixes good with bad, showing the nice side of despicable Gru.

Carell is one of those comic actors, like Peter Sellers, who excels at playing self-deluded, self-centered phonies, like Sellers’ Clouseau or like Carell‘s Michael on The Office. But Carell can tease the human element in too, as he does here. Working without his body, or rather working with Gru’s plump, creepy animated physique, Carell creates an unusually complex, sometimes explosive character — as the great Mel Blanc always did for the Looney Tunes. (Actually, Illumination is said to have employed a revolutionary computer-imaging device here called Insta-Freeze, which shrunk Carell and the other actors and turned them into animated cartoons, for the entire duration of the shoot. But that‘s another story.)

 

BATTLESHIP (Blu-ray DVD Combo) (Two Stars)

U.S.: Peter Berg, 2012 (Universal)

Battleship? Why? The idea of spending of two hundred million dollars and change to try to adapt a Hasbro board or video game (called “Battleship,” natch) into a huge would-be blockbuster war-action movie (likewise Battleship)’ toplining TV star Taylor Kitsch (“Friday Night Lights,”  John Carter), and swimsuit model and would-be movie star Brooklyn Decker (What to Expect When You‘re Expecting), struck me as a waste of time, sight unseen.

Sight seen, it’s even worse.

Visually dopey, punishingly loud, choked with absurdities and screamingly overproduced, Battleship shows, once again, the primacy in our theatres these days of big, dumb, loud movies with what are regarded as “surefire” commercial tie-ins. Battleship has some good stuff every now and then, and it’s “state-of-the-art” in some ways, I suppose –chockful of  CGI of extraterrestrial monsters and their space ships and ocean fortresses, destroying everything they can. But it’s also nonsensical and clichéd — possibly thanks to writers Erich and Jon Hoeber (Red), possibly not.

The inanities attack almost immediately, before the monsters even arrive on earth. (Their hangout is a distant world dubbed Planet G by Terran scientists ). Kitsch, as rebel-without-a-clue Alex Hopper, is out drinking with his straighter-than-straight-arrow Navy Commander brother, Stone (Alexander Skarsgard), when he spots a tall blonde hottie (Decker) in a bar, having troubles with the bartender (Louis Lombardi), who refuses to microwave her a chicken burrito. A brawl develops and somehow, they all (except the bartneder) wind up in Oahua, in an otherwordly ocean fight with otherwordly goateed monsters on huge monster-vessels.

If all of that sounds pretty stupid, believe me, it is. The story may be ridiculous, the sound track deafening, and most of the actors (including Liam Neeson as an admiral) may look trapped, but the effects, as usual, blow you out of your seats — or your couch.  But even by the standards set by all the loud, dumb action movies of the past, Battleship strikes into new, louder, dumber territory. Director Berg, who seems better working with a smaller canvas like Friday Night Lights, fumbles the ball. And why shouldn’t he, since the whole movie plays like an ad for Hasbro board or video games, while the board games function as ads for the movie, and Taylor Kitsch and Brooklyn Decker function as ads for the U.S. Navy. And vice versa maybe.

LAWLESS  (Also  Blu-ray/DVD Combo) (Three  Stars)

U.S.: John Hillcoat, 2012 (Starz/Anchor Bay)

The sometimes exciting, sometimes pretentious crime movie Lawless takes place in Franklin County, Virginia — “The Wettest County in the World,” according to the book on which the picture is based. And it deals with a legendary family of moonshine-makers and bootleggers, the Bondurants, as they wage war against both their gangster rivals and the sadistic dude of a Chicago law man, Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce), who’s come down south to shut them down.

Rakes is played as a pure, rotten villain, and the Bondurants are shown as at least semi-heroes, so the movie, somewhat like the crime thrillers and neo-noirs of the ’70s, scrambles our responses — and it would probably have been better if it scrambled them even more. Directed and written by the team of John Hillcoat and rocker-scenarist Nick Cave (who also joined forces on the nerve-jangling 2006 Aussie western The Proposition), Lawless is a very arty film about a rustic underworld — and it’s arty in both good and grating ways.

The design and cinematography here remind you of James Agee and Walker Evans’ classic book on the Depression rural poor, “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men.” But the main characters here, the Bondurants, are far from impoverished. They’re prosperous criminals who make the best moonshine in Franklin County and also run a restaurant and are handy with guns. Maybe that’s what partly wrong with the movie; it tries to pant a realistic picture of 1931 Virginia and to bring us close to the Bondurants, but it also heroizes them in ways that don’t quite ring true. The book that Hillcoat and Cave adapted was written by a Bondurant ancestor, Matt (the grandson of Jack Bondurant), and sometimes the two Australian filmmakers tell the story like loving relatives too.

The Bondurant Brothers are played by Jason Clarke (as Howard, the eldest and their terrifyingly fearless enforcer), Tom Hardy (as the near superhuman head man Forrest) and Shia LaBeouf (as Jack, the youngest and most ambitious of the,. Their ladies are played by Jessica Chastain (as Forrest’s ex-stripper friend), and Mia Wasikowska (as Jack’s lively preacher’s daughter of a girlfriend). Gary Oldman takes stage as the boss gangster Floyd Banner. There’s also a sympathetic sheriff who likes good moonshine whiskey (and good moonshiners), played by Bill Camp, and Jack’s fragile sidekick Cricket, played by Dane DeHaan. They’re all good, though the most memorable character here is Pearce’s Charlie Rakes — a fancy dan with plucked eyebrows and expensive suits, reeking of cologne. Rakes makes a snazzy villain.

The story begins with the Bondurants as kids, and the revelation of Jack’s sensitivity: he won’t shoot a pig though the pig’s time has come. The movie then glides past World War I, which messes up Howard’s mind, the Spanish Influenza epidemic (with Forrest miraculously survives, the first of his many miracle) and into 1931, the Prohibition era and the thriving Bondurant hooch business. Forrest and Howard (now played by Hardy and Clarke) run it without Jack — you never know when another pig has to be killed — and we see Jack (now played by LaBeouf) chamfing at the liquor bit, enlisting Cricket to help him set up a rival operation, and then selling his booze to Banner.

But Lawless doesn’t really plunge toward fraternal strife. Rakes is the antagonist and a mean one. His sadism keeps escalating. So do the Bondurants’ survival skills, none more formidable than Forrest‘s. At one point, Forrest has his throat slit and walks 12 miles through the snow — holding his throat together with his fingers.

Lawless is reminiscent in mood and style, and angle of vision of the period outlaw epics of the late ‘60s and ‘70s, especially Bonnie and Clyde, Thieves Like Us, Boxcar Bertha, and The Godfather 1 & 2. If it doesn’t really match its classic predecessors, or fulfill all its sometimes considerable ambitions, or justify its plentiful, harsh violence, it’s a movie that definitely achieves more than the average crime show these days.

For one thing, the movie, photographed by the French camera virtuoso Benoit Delhomme and designed by Chris Kennedy, is a triumph of period visualization. With its smoky vistas and tangled hillside forests, its antique ‘30s guns and cars, its frayed houses and rustic towns, the film feels right even when the characters don’t quite connect.

Cave’s script is stark and unsentimental, and it doesn’t sell out in the usual ways. But it also lacks the great scenes or the great character moments, of its best predecessors (or even of Hillcoat‘s and Cave‘s The Proposition).  The movie doesn’t make the leap into darkness that The Godfather movies did — which is part of the reason why The Godfather is fine old wine, and Lawless is merely a shot or two of moonshine.

 

Wilmington on DVDs: The African Queen; Casablanca

Tuesday, April 9th, 2013

PICK OF THE WEEK: CLASSIC


The African Queen/ Casablanca (Also Blu-ray) (Four Stars)
U.S.: John Huston/ Michael Curtiz (Warner Bros.)

Here, of course, are two of Humphrey Bogart’s best—and two of the most wonderful shows that American Movies in their celebrated Golden Age, ever concocted. If you don’t have these pictures in some format, or (worse) if you haven’t even seen them at all, you’re missing two of classic Hollywood’s richest, most memorable  experiences —and deprived of two of the best love-and-adventure  stories that any Golden Age production ever gave us.

The African Queen (Four Stars)
U.S.: John Huston, 1951

This wonderfully entertaining movie marked the summit meeting of two great Hollywood originals, Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn. They’re playing two of their very best roles—grizzled, hard-drinking riverboat captain Charlie Allnutt (for which Bogie won the Best Actor Oscar) and Rose Sayer, a very proper yet surprisingly adventurous missionary’s sister, who’s been left on her own in the jungle after a WWI attack on  her brother’s  mission. Rose’s only possible savoir, in an area deserted by the authorities, is the sloppy raffish  Charlie  — epitome of the untrammeled human nature that Rose believes “we were put on Earth to rise above.”

They both have a lot to learn.  Fleeing from any further carnage (at first), Charlie and Rosie chug their way downriver (aand later up) on Charlie’s  rickety but resourceful tramp boat, The African Queen. And, despite Rose’s initial disapproval, what develops is  one of the screen’s great cockeyed romance-adventures—as funny as it is moving, as picturesque as it is exciting. Directed with his usual dash by the legendary adventurer-director  John Huston, scripted by the great film critic (and screenwriter) James Agee from the popular  C. S. Forrester novel and photographed luminously by the matchless Jack Cardiff, it’s one of those movies where everything comes together, everything jells—and where the characters become folks we tend to remember with fondness, amusement, love and a little wonder.

Bogie and Kate were offscreen friends (Bogie’s wife Lauren Bacall came along offscreen for the ride as well), and their chemistry is magnificent. Bogart was famous throughout his long career for purveying menace and wounded virility, Hepburn for her natural elegance and enthusiasm, and, offscreen admirers as they were, they definitely exploit the attraction of opposites. Two consummate pros and chums, they handle the difficult navigation from being antagonists to being lovers with consummate ease  and sympatico. Many of their scenes together (the leech sequence, the white water rapids ride, and  Rose’s stern jettisoning of Charlie’s beloved whiskey) are classics in themselves.

The African Queen is one of those movies you can watch over and over again (as Casablanca is too, of course), because of its great stars and story,  and its marvelous crew and company — a supporting cast that includes Robert Morley as Rose’s brother the missionary (he has a touching mad scene), and Theodore Bikel and Peter Bull as pompous German Navy marauders.  That John Huston directed everyone and everything so well (he got Hepburn’s  performance on track by asking her to think of Eleanor Roosevelt as a model) is a little amazing, given the way his attention was divided. Huston’s antics and elephant hunts during the shooting inspired writer Peter Viertel’s roman a clef  “White Hunter, Black Heart”, and the acrid, anti-romantic 1990 movie Clint Eastwood later made from it—as well as a delightful memoir by Hepburn.

Casablanca (Four Stars) U.S.; Michael Curtiz, 1942 (Warner Bros.)

 

Casablanca, which is close to the perfect Hollywood Golden Age studio movie, shows us the world in conflict , the “Café Americain” where everyone goes—and the tormented but finally sublime passion of hard-case cabaret owner Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart, in his signature role) and political fugitive lsa Lund(Ingrid Bergman, in hers). Ilsa is the emotionally torn beauty whom Rick loved and lost, the angel who won his heart and left him in Paris, and but who now belongs body and soul, it seems, to the world-renoned underground anti-Fascist leader Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid.)

Around them swirl the ideological storms of Nazi-ravaged Europe, at least as Warners saw them. And backing them up is one of the all-time great Hollywood supporting casts: Claude Rains as the suave and lecherous Vichy police head Renault, Conrad Veidt as the reptilian Nazi commander Strasser, Sydney Greenstreet as Ferrari, Rick’s club-owning rival, Peter Lorre as Ugarte, the rat with papers , S. Z. Sakall as a.k.a.  ”Cuddles” as the cheeky barman, Marcel Dalio as the nimble croupier, Curt Bois as the ferret-like pickpocket (“Vultures everywhere!”), Leonid Kinskey, June Duprez, Helmut Dantine, John Qualen, and of course that indefatigable piano man (“All my teeth are pearly; all my hair is curly”) Sam (Dooley Wilson) — the fellow who plays (again and again) “As Time Goes By.”

Casablanca,” which expertly melds several key ‘40s Hollywood genres of the era (drama, comedy, noir, spy thriller, love story) was  written by the Epstein brothers (Julius and Philip) and Howard Koch, and directed by that sometimes underrated master, Michael Curtiz. A big hit in its day and also a multiple Oscar winner, this picture has never stopped pleasing and rousing audiences — who often respond with wild applause when Renault says “Round up the usual suspects,” or when Bogie/Rick touches Ingrid/Ilsa’s chin in farewell and says “Here’s looking at you, kid!“

The movie, though it’s adapted from a hack play, is a triumph. It  has brilliant writers, a matchless director, and a marvelous international cast. It has laughter and terror and, God, does it have romance. It has everything.  It’s not original, but, of its special type, it’s just about flawless. Casablanca is one of the inarguable triumphs of the Hollywood Studio system, and also of Warner Brothers and Curtiz, of canny scribes Howard Koch and the Epstein brothers, of that tremendous, unrepeatable cast, and of those two seemingly mismatched but ultimately perfect-for-each-other lovers: tough sad-eyed Bogie and sweet soft-eyed Ingrid.  As long as there’s a Casablanca, and as long as Sam plays, and as long as time goes by, we’ll always have Paris. Or at least we’ll have Warner Brothers’ Paris. And, God knows, we’ll always have Casablanca.

 

CHICAGO CRITICS FILM FESTIVAL 2013

The First Annual Chicago Critics Film Festival, described below,  has been dedicated by the Critics to the memory of their friend and colleague, Roger Ebert.

The 2013 edition of what we hope  will become a regular and valuable yearly cinema event starts this Friday at the Muvico Theaters Rosemont 18,   when The Chicago Film Critics Association presents the opening night film of the first annual Chicago Critics Film Festival, Sarah Polley’s Stories We Tell  – kicking off three days of mostly premiere showings of well-regarded current independent and art films. The festival runs Friday through Sunday, April 12 -14.

Stories We Tell  is, for me,  one of he year’s finest documentaries so far: Sarah Polley’s  intriguing and sometimes spellbinding  the true story (occasionally dramatized) of the actress-director’s investigation into Polley family legends that suggest Sarah was not the natural child of her parent’s long time marriage, but of an affair between her late actress mother and a mysterious “someone else.” Poignant and witty, sensitive and perceptive, it’s Polley’s best directorial film yet, and she’ll be present at the screening for a discussion with the audience.

Also on Friday the festival will show Grow Up, Tony Phillips, the latest movie film by 20-year-old prodigy director Emily Hagins, who was already a veteran filmmaker while still in her teens. Ms. Hagins will also be present at her screening.

The closing night films of the Chicago Critic’s festival will include a special appearance by  filmmaker and one time Chicagoan, William Friedkin (director of The French Connection and The Exorcist), attending a very special showing of Friedkin’s once-critically -ttacked but increasingly admired 1977 film thriller Sorcerer — a remake, starring Roy Scheider and Francisco Rabal, of  The Wages of Fear, Henri-George’s Clouzot’s classic 1952 suspense adventure film about four desperate men who take on the dangerous job of transporting truckloads of dynamite over mountain roads to help extinguish an oilfield fire. The other closing night film is director James Ponsoldt‘s reportedly funny and moving The Spectacular Now, starring Shailene Woodley and Mary Elizabeth Winstead  — with Ponsoldt also present for audience discussion.

All films were selected by the CFCA members. The full festival schedule follows:

 

FRIDAY, APRIL 12

7 PM: Stories We Tell (with Sarah Polley in attendance)

10 PM: Grow Up, Tony Phillips (with Emily Hagins and Peter Hall)

 

SATURDAY, APRIL 13

12 PM: Grow Up, Tony Phillips (with Emily Hagins)

1 PM: Shorts Program #1 (with the filmmakers)

2:30M: The Institute

3:30 PM: The Force Within Us (with Cris Macht)

4:30 PM: Leave Me Like You Found Me (with Adele Romanski)

6 PM: The Kings of Summer

7 PM: Sparks (with Chris Folino, William Katt and Ashley Bell)

9 PM: The Dirties

10 PM: Black Rock

 

SUNDAY, APRIL 14

12 PM: Shorts Program #2 (with filmmakers)

12:15 PM: The Artist and the Model

2:30 PM: Sparks

2:45 PM: When I Walk

4:30 PM: I Declare War

5 PM: The Spectacular Now (with James Ponsoldt)

6 PM: William Friedkin Book Signing

7:30 PM: Sorcerer (with William Friedkin).

 

The Chicago Critics Film Festival runs Friday through Sunday, April 12-14 at MUVICO THEATERS ROSEMONT 18, 9701 Bryn Mawr Avenue, Rosemont, Ill. 60018. Individual tickets and festival passes can be purchased online at www.chicagocriticsfilmfestival.brownpapertickets.com

For more details, log on to www.chicagocriticsfilmfestival.com