Author Archive

Wilmington on Movies: The Dictator

Sunday, May 20th, 2012

THE DICTATOR (Two and a Half Stars)

U.S.: Larry Charles, 2012\

Sacha Baron Cohen is no Charlie Chaplin, and he probably never will be. But at least he‘s willing to give his comedy a shot or two of social and political consciousness. The Dictator, a sort of heir to the agility and impudence and political courage of Chaplin’s great1940  The Great Dictator (in which Charlie sent up Hitler as “Adenoid Hynkel”), shows us Baron Cohen in that mood of mildly terrorist hilarity and cheerful bad taste that infused his breakthrough movie comedy Borat — or, to be more complete about it, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. .

Here, courtesy once again of his fellow writers  and director Larry Charles, Baron Cohen sticks a knife in world amity. Insead of a knuckle-headed, mispronouncing, sexist, racist, boorish reporter from Kazakhstan, we get a knuckle-headed, mispronouncing, sexist, racist, boorish, murderous dictator from Wadiya — the Muammar Qadafi-Sadam Hussein-like dumbbell despot Aladeen, who has ruled the little mythical North African nation with an iron fist and a brain of granite over mush, since the age of seven.

He’s a real full-blooded fascist tyrant, a proud oppressor. Whenever Admiral General Aledeen wants someone executed, he simply turns, catches the attention of a nearby lurking assassin and a makes a little “snuff” gesture with his fingers. On his bedroom wall is a gallery of photos of celebrity sexual conquests (all apparently bought and paid for), including Oprah Winfrey and Arnold Schwarzenegger, with Megan Fox rushing out the door from his latest tryst, refusing his plaintive plea that they cuddle.

Surrounding this horny buffoon are a scurvy band of henchmen and minions and possible traitors, including his right hand killer, relative and the country’s rightful heir to tyranny Tamir (Ben Kingsley). He has a nuclear project going out in the desert, held up by his propensity for executing scientists, especially when they balk at his request that the missiles have a pointed top rather than a rounded one — because he thinks pointed tops look more ferocious.

To put it cruelly. Aladeen is an amoral dunce and a bloody nincompoop, qualities he shares, in part, with many other great and not-so-great dictators, from Adolf Hitler to Adenoid Hynkel to Kim Jong-Il (to whom The Dictator is dedicated in “loving memory”). As such, he’s sometimes funny, sometimes not — which also is the case with this movie, as it was with both Borat and Baron Cohen’s 2009 follow-up, Bruno. The Dictator is a film admirable for its audacity, erratic in its comic attack, defiantly tasteless and, for the first time, somewhat sentimental and upbeat and conventional (which I thought helped rather than hurt the movie). It has one great scene, a number of good ones, and some really lousy ones. Ignore or forgive the bad stuff (which isn’t always that easy) and you might have a fairly good time. Remember: Some comedies — especially the so-called rom-coms — don’t have any good scenes at all.

The plot comes partly out of  Mark Twain’s “The Prince and the Pauper,” with a sideswipe through Eddie Murphy’s Coming to America. Aladeen, who sports a black beard that suggests both Bin-Laden and ZZ Top (and which he had at seven), treats his country like an abusable plaything, and been summoned to the U.N. to expain his atrocities and his nuclear projects. (“Peaceful,” he explains, cracking up.) He’s accompanied by his retinue and his latest double, a lame-brained goatherd who is even stupider than Aladeen. After that all arrive, Tamir sets in motion a plot to kidnap Aladeen, have the double take his place at the U.N., proclaim Wadiya a democracy, call in Chinese businessmen and start divvying up the oil profits.

So, before you can say “waterboarding,” Aladeen is hauled off to be tortured by grinning agent and killer-for-hire John C. Reilly (unnamed and uncredited but not unappreciated). After the two exchange torture tips, Aladeen escapes — and winds up in the hands of a wide-eyed, bouncy. tender-hearted feminist — and head of the local politically correct food store, the Free Earth Collective. Her name: Zoey (played, deblonded, by Anna Faris). He also runs into one of his presumed victims, the nuclear scientist who didn’t want pointed missile tops, Nadal (Jason Mantzoukas), a guy who’s now part of a New York expatriate community called Little Wadiya (their hangout is the Death to Aledeen restaurant) and the two hatch a counterplot to replace the double, give another U. N. speech repudiating democracy, and get back to the dictatorship racket — in a country that Aladeen believes loves to be oppressed.

We don’t have enough political comedy in our films, and maybe that’s why Baron Cohen received such a rapturous reception for Borat. I’m not sure why Sacha, a talented and uninhibited writer-comedian, makes movies that are such a hit or miss proposition, except that maybe sometimes his lack of inhibitions can outstrip his talent. An example of what goes wrong in his movies (for me) comes in a scene that has been praised by some critics: the helicopter sequence where Aladeen and Nadal freak out a nice and square-looking middle-aged American couple, by babbling away to each other, partly in Wadiyan (I guess), and partly in English, a series of remarks that include references to 911 (a Porsche model number), and to the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty and other tall landmarks, with Aladeen going “Boom! Boom!” in happy anticipation of fireworks. Naturally the distressed American couple make the wrong assumptions.

Now, we know Aldeen is an idiot or blabbermouth, capable of saying or doing anything. But why is the allegedly intelligent Nadal going along with him, and making the same blunders — instead of, say, desperately trying to steer him off the subject and continually failing (probably the right way to play the scene.) Baron Cohen and his fellow screenwriters (guys from “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm”), keep setting up scenes meant to be funny and outrageous but that don’t spring enough out of character or the situation — and that occasionally go way, way over the edge — like the shocker where Aladeen‘s double urinates in his water pitcher and then spills it on the Israeli delegation, or Zoey‘s masturbation lesson to Aladeen, or the sudden childbirth scene in the Free Earth Collective.

Of course the Marx Brothers were partial to non sequiturs too, and several crtics have compared this film to both Chaplin’s The Great Dictator, and the Marxes’ Duck Soup. But in their greatest films, Groucho, Chico and Harpo made their comedy work through sheer brazenness, through adroit asides and clever playing to the audience. That kind of wacky genius isn’t really a Cohen forte — even in his earlier movies, which are based on improvisation. In The Dicctator, many of the scenes didn‘t work for me consistently, and similar scenes didn’t in Borat or Bruno either. My loss perhaps. But you either laugh or you don’t.

The great scene I mentioned above is more a great comic/political moment, and it succeeds itself out of sheer brazenenness. At another U. N. meeting, the real Aladeen seizes the mike and goes into a long tirade about the relative merits of dictatorship and democracy. In it, he recounts all the misfortunes democracy is supposed to save or free us from — like having just the top one percent of our country’s citizens control most of the wealth. Or having a government (or a congressional majority) that continually cuts taxes for the rich, and cuts social services for the poor or middle class. Or having elections that are essentially rigged or bought. And on and on.

That scene almost saved the whole movie for me. Of course, between the urine and masturbation jokes, there was a lot to save. Sometimes it takes schtick as well as politics. Groucho, who liked to improvise too, could have brought down the house with a waggle of his shaggy eyebrows, a baleful stare through his imaginary glasses, a wave of his cigar, and a line like: “Ah, Mrs. Rittenhouse, won’t you lie down?” Ah well, what the hell: Heil Hynkel.

Wilmington on Movies: Battleship

Saturday, May 19th, 2012

BATTLESHIP (Two Stars)

U.S.: Peter Berg, 2012

It ain’t me. It ain’t me. I ain’t no fortunate one.

John Fogerty

Battleship? Maybe it’ll make a lot of money; maybe it won’t. (It’s a disappointment, so far.) But the idea of spending of two hundred million dollars and change to try to adapt a Hasbro board or video game (called “Battleship,” of course) 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 an astoundingly silly waste of time, sight unseen.

Sight seen, it’s even worse.

Punishingly loud, choked with absurdities and screamingly overproduced, Battleship shows, once again, that big, dumb, loud movies with what are regarded as “surefire” commercial tie-ins are way too much a feature of our film landscape. The movie has some good stuff every now and then, and it’s “state-of-the-art” in some ways, I suppose. It’s chockful of up-to-the-moment CGI of extraterrestrial monsters and their space ships and ocean fortresses, destroying everything they can. But it’s also nonsensical and stuffed with clichés — 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 in a bar, having troubles with the bartender (Louis Lombardi), who refuses to microwave her a chicken burrito.

Gallantly, Alex rushes out to get her said burrito, which he does by breaking into a nearby convenience store, tearing up the ceiling, stealing and (I presume) microwaving a chicken burrito and then resisting arrest, a feat of insane derring-do that so impresses the hottie, Samantha Shane (Decker) that she falls madly in love with Alex.  Samantha, incidentally, turns out to be the daughter of Stone’s boss, Admiral Shane, the commander of the entire Pacific Fleet (played by Liam Neeson).

What next? Older Brother Stone somehow wangles his black sheep sibling a commission as lieutenant in his Hawaii bailiwick. What happened to the charges of burrito theft, reckless micro-waving and ceiling vandalism is anybody’s guess. (By the way, to dispel any confusion brought about by the last paragraph, Liam Neeson is cast here as Admiral Shane, Samantha’s daddy, and not the entire Pacific Fleet — though I’m sure he could do either, or both, as long as he had Battleship‘s entire CGI staff.)

If all of that sounds pretty stupid, believe me, you ain’t seen (or heard) nothin’ yet. Somehow, all these people wind up in Oahu, near Pearl Harbor, where the U.S. and both Hopper brothers are on ships in the middle of war games with the Japanese Navy (commanded by Japanese star Tadanogo Asano, as intrepid Captain Yuginagata), with crews that include saucy pop star Rihanna as Petty Officer Cora “Weps” Raikes and Kitsch‘s witty “Friday Night Lights“ castmate Jesse Plemons as Boatswain Seaman Jimmy “Ordy” Ord. On shore, Samantha keeps ragging Alex about getting permission for their marriage from her dad, the Admiral, something that seems to paralyze the guy. (One thing the script is good at, by the way, is dreaming up names.)

Dr. Nogrady. Cal Zapata. Chef Petty Officer Walter “The Beast” Lynch. Chief Engineer Hiroki. Uh-oh. Suddenly the monsters — humanoid types with evil eyes and goatees, dressed up in Transformers-style robot garb — show up in their flying zingies and ocean fortress, decimating Hong Kong (Jackie Chan was busy elsewhere) and throwing up a force field around themselves and the three ships near Pearl, thereby preventing any nuke attacks. As the Hopper bothers and their colorful crews try to figure out what to do — Alex, though so shy with the Admiral, thinks nothing of cruising up to the monster’s fortress in a speedboat, hopping aboard and knocking on it — things get more complicated ashore.

Everybody is fleeing. Samantha, no less, has forsaken her bikini and is racing around the mountain roads, with nerdy radio man Cal Zapata (Hamish Linklater) and courageous double amputee Lt. Col. Mick Canales (played by real-life Iraq War hero Gregory D. Gardson). Both on sea and on land, things get worse and more and more things get blown up. (“I’ve got a bad feeling.“ Alex says, in classic understatement.) The Secretary of Defense (Peter MacNicol) keeps having fits in the war room. President Obama shows up on the TV news (MSNBC, naturally), looking worried. Does this prove that we should have signed a non-aggression pact with Planet G? Or should it be cut from the budget? Anyway, Viva Zapata! Included in all this is a tribute to America‘s past glories and the U.S.S. Missouri — a touch I rather liked, even if it didn’t make much more sense here than anything else.

I’d synopsize some more, but I don’t want to stray accidentally into Spoiler Alert territory, and, to tell the truth, I feel like an idiot repeating all this. (No amens please.)

The story may be ridiculous, the sound track deafening, and most of the actors may look trapped, but the effects, as usual, blow you out of your seats — and you may want to stay there, especially if the theatre has a good concession stand with gourmet pretzels and hot dogs. You’ll want to get back in time for Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son” playing under the end-titles, though — the one time I didn’t mind the movie’s outrageous loudness and also something that convinced me that Berg (or whoever picked it) is a good guy at heart. And the picture is very lucky to have Gregory Gardson, since he gives the show some dignity it might otherwise lack.

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 is usually good at macho stuff, but seems better working with a smaller canvas like Friday Night Lights, can’t seem to make much sense of any of this either. And why should he, since the whole movie might as wwell be nothing more than an advertisement for the Hasbro board or video game, while the board games now function as ads for the movie, and Taylor Kitsch and Brooklyn Decker function as ads for the U.S. Navy. And vice versa maybe.

Incidentally, for U. S. Navy recruiting movies,I prefer sailors Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra and Jules Munshin in On the Town. And I ain’t no fortunate son, either.

Wilmington on Movies: What to Expect When You’re Expecting

Friday, May 18th, 2012

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU’RE EXPECTING (Two Stars)
U.S.: Kirk Jones, 2012

If you’re pregnant, or if your significant other is pregnant, or if you’re just in the mood for another modern rom-com with an all-star cast, you may get a kick or two (sorry) out of What to Expect When You’re Expecting, a not-very-good movie with a pretty good cast. Based — or rather “inspired by” — a longtime best-selling pregnancy guide book by Heidi Murkoff, this is yet another example of why it seems so hard to make good or funny romantic comedies these days — although here the subject mostly deals with what happens after the heavy breathing has stopped and the consequences of parenthood loom large.

How do you make a movie out of a best-seller self-help guide about pregnancy? How do you make a movie out of a best-seller self-help guide about anything? (The only good example that comes to mind is Woody Allen’s 1972 all-star film of Dr. David Reuben’s Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask).

But I doubt that “Hire Woody Allen” is an acceptable answer to those questions. Instead, director Kirk Jones (Waking Ned Devine and Nanny McPhee) and writers Shauna Cross (Whip It) and Heather Hach (Legally Blonde: The Musical) have decided to craft an ensemble comedy, mostly set in Atlanta, in which four couples go though pregancy problems, one other couple tackles adoption, and three of the twosomes (Cameron Diaz & Matthew Morrison, Elizabeth Banks & Ben Falcone, Brooklyn Decker & Dennis Quaid) amazingly wind up in the obstetrics ward all at the same time. (I refuse to even consider a spoiler alert for this.)

OH WELL, SPOILER ALERT

At the same time, astonishingly, the fourth couple (Jennifer Lopez and Rodrigo Santoro) adopt a baby in Ethiopia, and the fifth couple (Anna Kendrick and Chace Crawford) hold hands, stride through the hospital corridor and face the future (and any possible sequels),

END OF ALERT

The writers’ imaginations are fertile. (Sorry). This is not one of those anemic rom-coms with few characters and lots of clichés. This one has lots of characters and even more clichés. Banks plays pregnant Wendy, the author of a best-selling book on lactation and propreitor of a store called, I believe,  Breast Choice (or possibly The Breast is Yet to Come). Her squeamish hubby Gary (Falcone) is an overweight nebbish whose dad Ramsey (Quaid) is a rich exNASCAR champ with a young, gorgeous (and also pregnant) wife named Skyler (Decker). Diaz’ Jules runs a weight-loss clinic, and was impregnated by her partner on a TV dance contest show, Evan (Morrison, of “Glee“), aftere throwing up on the show. Lopez’ Holly is the prospective adoptive mother with husband Alex (Santoro); both of them play more for seriousness than for laughs. The result is the same.

The most convincing couple in the movie, which tells you how convincing the movie is, is the twosome of duelling food truck owners Rosie (Kendrick) and Marco (Crawford),who move from rivalry to a one night stand to prospective parenthood to…..Well, we’ll leave that to your bestseller-fed imagination.

Stranger than the fact that the stork (so to speak) ends up making so many deliveries to the same ward, and to people who know each other (sometimes), while apparently keeping tabs on events in Ethiopia, and cueing the music for Rosie and Marco, is the fact that some of the quintet, have baby-related occupations (baby photographer, breast-feeding manuals and the like) and can therefore dispnese wisdom from Ms. Murkoff’s book. Or the fact that four seeming househusbands, calling themselves the Dude’s Group –played by Chris Rock (spewing wisecracks like a late-night Vesuvius of wit) , Tom Lennon, Rob Heugel and Amir Talai — keep strolling through the movie, through a sunny park, looking like a mini-Wild Bunch with baby carriages and dispensing more baby wisdom — though they’re seemingly unable to keep one of their clumsier little kids, named Jordan (after Michael Jordan?) from getting continuously bonked on the head.

Nnne of this though is as peculiar or as funny as the episode in Allen‘s Everything…Sex, where Gene Wilder falls in love with a sheep. But maybe that’s one of the reasons why Allen isn’t writing or directing here..

Actually. this is kind of a sweet-tempered picture. You will have noted that it has a very good cast, But it matters little, since the script, following  the usual modern rom-com norm, is a poor one: hectic and preachy and clichéd and not every funny. (Rebel Wilson as Janice, Wendy’s friend, is the only consistent laugh-getter.) Diaz, Banks and Decker have all been given senwhat convincing prosthetitic tummies. And in the end, they all scream convincingly.

But the movie, which tries hard to leaven its sunny comedy and advice with a little darkness and realism, succeeds only in dredging up unwelcome memories (to me) of Valentine’s Day and New Year’s Eve, and unpleasant thoughts of a possible “What to Expect When You’re Expecting: The Musical.” Is that likely? Is that conceivable? I’m afraid to ask.

Wilmington on DVDs: Certified Copy, The Report

Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

CO-PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW

Certified Copy (Also Blu-ray) (Four Stars)

France/Italy/Iran: Abbas Kiarostami, 2010 (Criterion Collection)

When does love begin? When does it stop? And whrn is a painting a work of art?

The superb filmmaker Abbas Kiarostami’s first non-Iranian production, which ponders those questions,  is a jewel of that director‘s special brand of stylized cinematic realism, as well as a personal meditation (much like Orson Welles‘ F for Fake) on artistry and fakery. Translucent and crystal-clear in its imagery, yet opaque and mysterious in its meaning and narrative logic –it’s a story that turns, halfway though, into a different story with the same lead actors (a dissonant couple played by Juliette Binoche and William Shimell) but now cast as different characters.  Certified Copy is also a sort of copy, or inspired remake, of other classic European art films: most obviously Roberto Rossellini’s Strangers.

Made in Italy (seedbed of neorealism, homeland of Rossellini and De Sica), starring a French leading lady (the magnificently subtle and lovely Binoche) as an antique dealer , and the  lesser known but gifted English leading man (Shimell) as a writer, this splendidly shot (by Luca Bigazzi), exquisitely beautiful European-Iranian co-production is partly one of Kiarostami’s chamber road movies — one of those Kiarostami pictures in which much of the action and dialogue transpire in a traveling car’s front seat with the image shifting between characters on the driver and passenger sides — and partly a dramatic travelogue and pastiche of Rossellini’s great but once controversial 1953 romantic drama Voyage in Italy (also called Strangers), which starred  Ingrid Bergman and George Sanders as a couple on Italian vacation whose marriage is crumbling.

The setting is in Tuscany, on the roads and in the  mountain villages and cities. Shimell (an opera star) plays James Miller, an opinionated and somewhat self-absorbed best-selling author, who has just written a prise-wining book on the validity of artistic or painterly copying. Binoche plays an unnamed single mother (the credits call her “She” or “Elle”) who takes Miller on a day date and drive in the country, from Arezzo (site of a Miller lecture) to Lucignano (a city celebrated as a wedding site). Elle likes to argue and provoke and meet new people. James is sardonic, maybe a touch too narcissistic. Are they ba couple? Somewhere along the way the two turn into something different. They begin impersonating, or perhaps  revealing themselves, as a long-married pair (one with severe problems, like Bergman and Sanders), and they slide into these new roles, and this greater intimacy, with strange, unexplained fullness.

Several things could be happening here. The two could be role-playing — either in the first part or in the second part of the story – pretending they’ve just met, or pretending they’ve been married for fifteen years.. Or they could be leaping forward suddenly, through the magic of cinema, from the time they first met, to another time fifteen years later. Or the entire film could be a piece of artifice, a copy of an art film on various levels. If you want the answer, Kiarostami (who has been single much of his working life) gives it to us in the first part of a 2010 Criterion interview in the DVD extras disc. It surprised me. 

The story of Certified Copy, according to Godfrey Cheshire’s exemplary essay, comes from a tale of two people that director Kiarostami once told to Binoche in Tehran: a story he initially claimed was true, and had actually happened to him, but which he later confessed was a fabrication. The movie, which retells that anecdote, or joke, or fantasy, or dream, is enigmatic and will bewilder some. Yet it’s also often mesmerizing, the work of a director who is a master ot fiction film (Taste of Cherry), a master of documentary (Homework), and a master at mixing the two (Close-Up) . It is  full of talk and ideas and emotions, but it also feels as natural as breathing.

Japan’s Akira Kurosawa, expressing his sorrow at the death of India’s Satyajit Ray, named Kiarostami as Ray’s  successor as a master film realist, and Certified Copy does recall some of the middle and late works of the nonpareil Ray (The Home and the World), in its beauty, its precise style and its acute psychological drama. Kiarostami though, is really one of a kind. He‘s a filmmaker like no one else, even when he makes a certified (or uncertified) copy of a film by another great colleague, like Rossellini or Ray, or in another great tradition — in the mode of Strangers or L’Avventura or Eternity and a Day.

Even working in more unfamiliar settings and stranger cultures, in a foreign country and in different languages, this champion of  Iranian moviemakers remains a true artist—a yarn-spinner perhaps, and a tall tale-teller, but no fake. Bravo Kiarostami. Bravo all great artists. And all great copyists. (In Italian, French and English with English subtitles.)

Also: The feature The Report (Iran: Abbas Kiarostami, 1977) Three and a Half Stars. Based on the failure of his own marriage, this fine, humane, highly personal and keenly observant (and very rare) early feature by Kiarostami is yet another look at a disintegrating male-female relationship and a husband and wife at odds with each other: in this case, a selfish tax collector  accused of soliciting bribes and his neglected and embittered wife. (Kiarostmi’s sympathies, interestingly, are clearly with the wife and he is very hard on the character, the husband, drawn from himself.) 

Kiarostami, who is often most notable for his portrayals of poverty, children and ordinary people, seems surprisingly comfortable in this niddle class, adult, educated milieu — which is close to his own. The Report was one of his earliest features and all negatives of it were destroyed in the Khomeini revolution; you can tell why this non-censorious portrayal of a Westernized, more liberal  Iran would have displeased an Ayatollah. (This DVD version  was struck from a video made from a used, damaged print, with some lines; it still looks good.)

But though the film shows a side of Kiaorstami somewhat different from the one we expect, it’s very intelligently and movingly done. and it’s in the great Iranian cinema tradition. Its inclusion makes this Criterion release a must-have for the most demanding movie-lovers. With Kurosh Afsharpanah and Shohreh Aghdashloo. (In Iranian, with English subtitles.)

Extras: Making-Of  Documentary Let’s See “Certified Copy,” with interviews with Kiarostami, Binoche and Shimell; new interview with Kiarostami; Ttrailer; booklet with essay by Cheshire. 

Wilmington on DVDs: The Devil Inside; My Perestroika; Who’s Minding the Store?; Who’s Got the Action?; The Spiders

Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

The Devil Inside (One Star)

U. S.: William Brent Bell, 2012 (Paramount)

Just how bad can a movie be that grosses 34 million dollars on its first weekend? Pretty damned bad, as you’ll find out quickly if you dip into The Devil Inside — the latest entry in the found-footage horror or mocko-shockumetary sweepstakes that began in earnest with the 1999 box office success of The Blair Witch Project, and has since been responsible for The Last Exorcism, (Rec) and (Rec) 2,  Cloverfield (the one really good one), another Blair Witch project, a bunch of Paranormal Activity movies, and probably a few more cheapo gore fests you’d be a dope to pay money to see.

 
Visually ugly, dramatically ridiculous, thematically shoddy, psychologically inert, emotionally squalid, yet financially flabbergasting (The Devil Inside’s 34 million dollar opening weekend grosses, came for a movie budgeted at about a million), this bloody little freak show tries to squeeze The Exorcist through Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity, and comes up with the same old jiggling-camera, screaming-actor bloodbath, interspersed with baptisms, exorcism classes, and trips to the psycho ward at the Vatican hospital for the cinematically insane. 
 
In The Devil Inside, the horrors begin right away in the credits, when the movie explains that we are about to see footage mysteriously discovered, recording a series of  mysterious events, which have left everyone who has seen this footage (carefully cut together by professional editors) in a state of inexplicable mystification. If any of you out there have any knowledge of what all this mysterious footage means, or why it was put together, or what happens in the movie, or why hordes of moviegoers paid 34 million dollars to see it on the openinfg weekend (and didn’t angrily demand refunds), you are advised to immediately contact the producers of The Devil Inside — who may themselves in a state of utter mystification.
 
The prologue also helpfully informs us that the Vatican does not believe in exorcism and had nothing to do with this picture, something that should clear up all those nasty rumors about Pope Benedict’s penchant for Dario Argento movies. Then, as we watch, presumably breathless with terror, Devil Inside’s director-co-writer William Brent Bell and his producer/co writer Mathew Peterman, open up with a cryptic 911 call, in which a dazed-sounding woman confesses to several murders, and we are then taken on a jiggling hand-held camera tour of a sordid-looking, disheveled house where three people lie dead, all smeared with their own blood, which also covers the walls.
 
This messy carnage, we‘re told, occurred after a botched exorcism resulted in the seemingly possessed Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley) running amok, killing all the exorcists and then calling up 911 to summon the police and the jiggling cameraman. This may sound like the movie quickly hitting its nadir, but this repulsive scene is actually one of Devil Inside’s high points, only exceeded by the double-jointed contortionist act later executed in an asylum by body double Pixie Le Knot.
 
Decades later, Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade), Maria’s model-caliber daughter, sets off for Rome, under gray and cloudy skies, for an overseas visit to the Vatican university and the Vatican mental hospital, accompanied by documentarian Michael (Ionut Grama), who has another jiggling handheld camera and follows Isabella everywhere, perhaps under the delusion that she is Isabella Rossellini. The movie’s actual cinematographer, Gonzalo Amat, seems to be following Michael with his own jiggling handheld camera, and Michael occasionally sets his camera down and photographs himself, but not Gonzalo.
 
Soon, amidst all this jiggling and these gray vistas, and an occasional splatter of blood, accompanied by loud clanging noises and further mystification, Isabella hooks up with two enterprising English-speaking priests and free-lance exorcists — Simon Quaterman (Ben Rawlings) and David Keane (Evan Helmuth). They sneak her and Michael into the hospital to see Maria, where everybody endures allegedly shocking scenes of demonic possession, foul language worthy of Linda Blair‘s Regan, horrific exposition and double-jointed displays where the limber Ms. Pixie ties herself into Le Knot. (See picture below.)
 
NO SPOILER ALERT
 
It’s all pretty horrible, though not very convincing or interesting, unless you’re partial to sordid rip-offs of The Exorcist recorded by jiggling cameras. I’d go on with this synopsis, but, hey, you know, the devil with it. Enough is enough. The Devil Inside also has a really annoying surprise ending, which isn’t even worth spoiling.
 
END OF NON-SPOILER
 
One of the advantages of this whole found-footage school of horror movies, besides the fact that they‘re cheap and you reap huge profits on them, is that you can get away with bad cinematography that looks as if it was shot by amateurs, but here is tolerated because it’s supposed to look like bad photography shot by amateurs, recording the actions of non-actors, working without scripts. Therefore, the moviemakers have an alibi for everything, except the weather.
 

So much for “art.“ Maybe it’s The Devil Inside and its makers who know what audiences really want to see. Cinematography that looks amateurish. Acting that looks like non-acting. A script that seems unwritten. Contortionist acts. Mocko-Shockumentaries. Blood on the walls. Devils in the hospital. Corpses strewn hither and thither. Zombies and demons running amok. And holding it all together: jiggling camerawork, inexplicable mystification and an overpowering sense that your time is being throughly wasted. Now, that’s entertainment!

My Perestroika (Two and a Half Stars)

U.S.A.: Robin Hessman, 2011 

Robin Hessman’s documentary about one of the most momentous political events of the 20th century — the collapse of the Soviet Union ad the seeming end of the Cold War — makes it look puzzlingly unmomentous, almost mundane. Hessman, an American, who worked in Russia during the ‘90s on their version of “Sesame Street,” focuses on five Russians, including four ex-schoolmates, and follows them from the ‘80s to now: though the traumas and upheavals of Gorbachev, Yeltsin, glasnost, perestroika, and finally the dissolution of the USSR.

The quintet Hessman builds her movie around are Olga Durikova, once the class beauty, now a single mother who works for a billiards company, Ruslan Stupin, a ex-punk rock star (with the group NAIV) who’s now a subway/street musician, Andrei Yevgrafov, a successful entrepreneur who runs a chain of posh western-style men’s wear stores. and two history teachers, the husband and wife Borya and Lyuba Meyerson. Some of them yearn a little for the past (and its security), some are delighted by the change. Almost all of them are too busy to focus much on politics.

 My Perestroikais not memorably shot or edited, but its human material makes it sometimes fascinating. At the end, even with the revelations or intimations (or are knowledge from elsewhere) that the new Russia is corrupt and violent, and might eventually be a threat as the old Russia was, one is amazed by how quiet and, in the end, non-bloody, and how seemingly inevitable, the fall of Communism finally was. (Russian and English, with subtitles)

 

Who’s Minding the  Store? (Three Stars)

U.S.: Frank Tashlin, 1963 (Three Stars) (Olive)

Jerry Lewis, that’s who. Without Dean. And since this Frank Tashlin-written-and-directed farce — set in a department store that Jerry, as the well-meaning but  accident-prone  Norman Phiffler, systematically demolishes –  dates from Lewis’ biggest commercial (and even artistic) period, the early ’60s, that means we’re going to see plenty of the man the French (or some of the French) call M. Le Crazy, doing his thing: all-out slapstick, spazzy chaos and wild mugging.

Jerry, that is, Norman, tended to be a bit more of a lady-killer when Dean Martin wasn’t around (sometimes even when he was) and in this romantic slapstick marathon, Norman hass won the heart and body of  Barbara Tuttle (Jill St. John),  gorgeous elevator girl at Tuttle’s Department store (this and other plot elements in Store, including Ray Walston in a corporate sneak role, seem to owe something  to Billy Wilder’s The Apartment).

Barbara, unbeknownst to Norman, is the daughter of the store owners, the incompatible  Tuttles: dictator harridan Pheobe (Agnes Moorehead) and milquetoast Tuttle (John McGiver again). So, when he’s hired by Tuttle’s and Pheobe, hip to the romance, tries to prove him an idiot; Norman unoftunately cooperates. (His greatest debaces involves a vacuum cleaner, with a blimp-like bag, that runs Lewisishly amok.)

Jerry Lewis is a matter of taste, of course, though I first developed the taste for him and Dean, as an impressionable kid of ten or so, which is just the right time. Besides he was only a year away from The Nutty Professor when he made this movie, the kind of show that unwittingly puts words like “madcap” and “romp” and “zany”  and “Lady! Lady!” in your head.  Well, what the hell: Vive Le Crazy!

Who’s Got the Action? (Two and a Half Stars)

U/S.: Daniel Mann, 1962 (Olive)

Dean Martin, that’s who. Sans Jerry Lewis.

(As I’m sure you know, “sans” is French for “without.”)  Here, suave smoothie Italiano Dino is playing a hopeless gambling addict married to Lana Turner, who devises a pretty ridiculous but strangely effective sceeme to try to break the racetrack habit, and teams up with Dean’s sometimes amorous co-worker Eddie Albert to pull it off — incurring the confusion of a  fellow bettors (John McGover again) and the wrath of gsngsgter/gambling czar Walter Matthau. (It’s a sort of silly role, but Matthau steals all his scenes again.

Dean could be a bit more romantic when he wasn’t yoked to Jerry (That’s amore), and here he not only has Lana, pitching woo and anti-parimutual activity, but the unusually good cast above. (Paul Ford, Nita Talbot and Jack Albertson are also around.) Jack Rose produced and wrote, from a novel by Alexander Rose. The director is the sometimes more serious Daniel Mann (The Rose Tattoo).

Dean, like Jerry, was at his commerical (and even artistic) zenith in the late ’50s and early 60s, and it really is a shame they never got together again except for that brief hug engineered by Frank Sinatra at Lewis’  March of Dimes telethon. Too fast, too fleeting. Maybe Billy Wilder should have cast them in tandem after Peter Sellers’ heart attack in Kiss Me, Stupid opened up a part. (Jerry couldn’t have mugged more than Ray Walston. Ah, no, wouldn’t have worked.) In any case, when I was ten or so, they made me laugh. Like crazy.

 

The Spiders (Three Stars)

German: Fritz Lang, 1919-1920 (Kino Classics)

Fritz Lang (M, Metropolis, Die Nibelungen) was a master of horror, crime and adventure, and he combines them all — along with a dark touch of romance and a smidgen of humor– in this epic movie tale of lost treasure, exotic Peruvian climes, a daring adventurer (Carl de Vogt as the almost insanely courageous explorer from San Francisco, Kay Hoog), a band of ruthless criminals who tunnel under Chinatown and make up the international gang  The Spiders, the priceless and elusive Buddha’s Head Diamond, the beauteous sun priestess Naela (Lil Dagover), and one of the more murderous of all femme fatales, the busty but perfidious Lio Sha (Ressel Orla).

This spectacular black and white silent movie was released in two episodes (both in this DVD) — Part One: The Golden Sea (1919) and Part Two: The Diamond Ship (1920) — and it was quite obviously influenced by Louis Feuillade’s French crime serials  Judex, Fantomas and Les Vampires, which are better, but not by much. Serial followers with campier tastes might prefer the jovial, high-spirited nonsense of  American cliff-hangers like The Perils of Pauline, but even considering The Spiders’ lack of humor, it’s easy to see that both Lang and Feuillade are superior artists, and that Lang would grow into an even more important one.

Only Hitler and the Nazis, worse monsters and more evil criminals than The Spiders, could drive out Lang and the other German and Austrian film noir greats to Hollywood, stopping his rise in his own country. But these remnants of high adventure remain. Confusion to The Spiders, and to their Nazi counterparts! (Silent movie with intertitles and music score by Ben Model.)  

 

 

Wilmington on DVDs: The Grey

Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

CO-PICK OF THE WEEK:  NEW

THE GREY (Three Stars)

U.S. Joe Carnahan, 2012 (Universal)

Fitting that this movie is called The Grey, because grey it certainly is—cold, and bitter, and sunless, a suspense picture full of existential terror, untamed nature, overwhelming anxiety and relentless death, always a step or two behind. And wolves. And Liam Neeson.

What is The Grey about? Macho stuff. The all-male group. Fear. Death. Survival. What we like to call manhood. In the film, seven or eight men (the number keeps dwindling as the story goes on)—workers in an Alaskan oil refinery that seems to run on booze and machismo—survive a skull-shatteringly convincing plane crash in the wilderness, only to find themselves scrambling to survive in the wilds. They’re in a fix: lost in a perilous land without traces of other humanity—trapped in a deadly realm of  mountains and huge forests and vast chasms waiting to swallow you up, a world mantled with snow and ice and vibrating with an intense, bone-stripping chill you can practically feel as you watch the movie.

It’s bad enough to crash-land in a frozen wilderness, especially one staged so well by director Joe Carnahan and company and photographed so well by Masanobu Takayanagi (Warrior). But worse awaits. As the seven try to find their way back to civilization, they’re hunted by a pack of huge, ravenous, but scarily patient wolves, picking them off one by one. These beasts’ eyes glow in the dark. They howl. They are monstrous. some CGI, some animatronic, some actual wolves. They are always there, tracking, watching, waiting to kill and feed and send one more cast member to hell or otherwise.

Do real wolves act like this? Maybe not, according to Carroll Ballard’s classic pro-wildlife adventure Never Cry Wolf. But this movie follows the logic of Jaws, the logic of horror. The lost oil riggers have one thing going for them: Neeson, an unstoppable force in that previous action blockbuster, Taken (2008), here playing John Ottway, a wolf-hunter hired by the oil company to shoot any wolves that menace the oil workers.

A guy suicidally unhappy about losing his wife, but an ace wolf killer who knows his prey, Ottway just happens to be on the downed plane. So naturally he becomes head guy for the beleaguered survivors: a desperate bunch that includes Frank Grillo as brutal ex-con Diaz, Dermot Mulroney as the bearded intellectual Talget, Nonso Anozie as the sturdy black man Burke, and Dallas Roberts as the hapless Hendrick.

None of them, we feel, would last a day without Ottway. But he’s no conventional movie action hero. Eyes quizzical and hurt-looking, voice a low, measured, all-knowing lyrical Irish growl, Ottway dispenses wolf lore (keep to the trees, he says), and shoots,and  helps his men live and also helps them die, all the while trying to outmaneuver the terror that pursues them.

You may wonder why these wolves don’t descend on the men and rip them apart,  despite Neeson. The answer is simple. Though the movie often feels real—and though director co-writer Joe Carnahan (working with co-writer Ian Mackenzie Jeffers, adapting his own short story “Ghost Walker“) has made it into an absolutely terrific suspense show—it’s only as our worst nightmares.

That’s why it was clever to cast Neeson as Ottway, after  Taken and 2011’s Unknown, in which he played almost ridiculously invulnerable heroes, supermen who could seemingly take down anyone, brave any peril, vanquish any gang, kick any ass. Those two movies, though they were smash hits, struck me as ridiculous, almost laughably Übermensch-ish tall tales.

Neeson, who’s had a largely laudable acting career ever since he and Helen Mirren made Excalibur in 1981 for John Boorman, struck it rich with super-popular violent trash in Taken and Unknown, and he made it work partly because he was so obviously superior to it, because, though he had the leonine, muscular looks of an action hero fit ready for anything, he also had that extra element of brains and sensitivity, something that played against the nonsensical plots. The story of The Grey is more believable and interesting—or at least Carnahan and Jeffers make it more believable and interesting. It’s semi-pure Jack London stuff, and the dialogue, which tends toward Ernest Hemingway-James Dickey macho banter and philosophizing is more engaging than anything you’ll find in Taken, or in Carnahan’s and Neeson’s last joint venture, the ludicrous TV knockoff, The A-Team.

The movie, at its best, reminds you of such classics as Boorman’s and Dickey’s Deliverance, or Lev Kuleshov‘s London-derived Russian silent Outside the Law, or even a flawed but exciting show like Lee Tamahori’s and David Mamet’s The Edge, The Grey makes the wilderness a terrifying place. Movies that are supposed to scare the hell out of you by evoking the terrors of the damned, of Hell and all its demons, usually do little for me, no matter how many devils they pull out of their hats. But The Grey is a genuinely scary movie—whether it’s swinging us over that chasm (a really terrifying scene), or crashing that plane or siccing the wolves on the survivors. And by the way,  you shouldn’t walk out before the end of  The Grey’s final credits. The movie has one last zinger for you.

Extras: Commentary with Carnahan and the editors; Deleted scenes.

 

 

Wilmington on Movies: Dark Shadows

Saturday, May 12th, 2012

DARK SHADOWS (Three Stars)

U.S.: Tim Burton, 2012

The original TV “Dark Shadows” was a hell of a soap, a classic of ‘60s-’70s pop/trash culture. When you watch it today (if you lived through those years), you can almost hear a ghostly backdrop chorus of Johnson and Nixon speeches, Walter Cronkite reporting the Vietnam War news, and hit after hit by the Rolling Stones. But, in the new Johnny Depp version, Depp and director Tim Burton treat Shadows more reverently than perhaps they should, almost like a classic, period.

They mount it gorgeously, load it up with top-of-the-line expensive talent, headed by Depp as the series’ classy camp vampire Barnabas Collins. And they fill the spaces around Barnabas with a lot of stunning star actresses and creepy or villainous supporting actors, all backed by a shrewdly selected ‘70s soundtrack laced with mainstream non-Stones hits and pop-camp like The Carpenters’ “Top of the World” and Barry White and The Moody Blues‘ “Nights in White Satin.“ (Karen Carpenteer’s creamy, ultra-mellow dulcier of a voice and Barry White’s virile purr and the crashing waves  of  “Nights in White Satin” all become terrifying by counterpoint.)

Most interestingly the filmmakers  take a lead character, Barnabas C., whom I remember as something of an epicene icon, and they let Depp (who has said that he interprets many roles with a gay slant) make Barnabas so unabashedly heterosexual with his lady loves — Eva Green in Lara Parker’s old role of witch/bitch Angelique Bouchard and Bella Heathcote as both eternal 18th century love Josette Duprez and ’70s governess Victoria Winters — that they either die or kill for love of him.

There’s also no shortage of divas and ingenues at Collins Manor: Michelle Pfeiffer, in a striking return, plays noir goddess Joan Bennett‘s old role of matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, that unquiet Brit Helena Bonham Carter takes Grayson Hall‘s part of untraditional psychotherapist Dr. Julia Hoffman and Chloe Grace Moretz does Elizabth’s languid smarty-pants teenage daughter Carolyn Stoddard.

As for the males in The Shadows, they include Jonny Lee Miller, unlikably playing the the spineless Roger Collins, Elizabeth’s brother and father of the eerily self-possessed tyke David (Gully McGrath), plus Jackie Earle Haley as the spooky-looking hired hand Willie Loomis, who gives a shot of needed anti-glamour to one of the more glamorous-looking vampire movies ever. And last but not least, Alice Cooper, who plays ghoulish front man at the Collins’s not-quite-Ambersons ball.

The story, cannily but not too compellingly supplied by screenwriter Seth Grahame-Smith (author of “Zombies and Pride and Prejudice“), is set in 1972, the year Nixon was resoundingly elected and about the time of the original TV show (which ran from 1966 to 1971). The show begins with a high-melodramatic prelude in which the Collins family travels to the New World, starts up the the city of Collinsport and the initially lucrative Collins fishery, and the dashing but peculiar Barnabas wins the hearts of both angelic Josette and devilish Angelique (who preps for her war on Barnabas by killing his parents).

It all ends (in the beginning) in the deep, dark, dreadful Gothic night, with Barnabas and Josette perched at the top of a high Gothic cliff, above crashing Gothic waves — he falls, she falls, he can’t save her –and evil Angelique gets him vampirized and buried in a chained box.

200 years later, Barnabas is dug up and awakened by a group of hapless workmen who are immediately bitten and killed. “I’m thirsty,” the well-mannered Barnabas explains, and returns to Collins manor (it‘s gone to seed and so has the fishery), where he’s greeted by Loomis and Elizabeth, and the movie plunges into the horror-as-soap-opera shtick we expect, the relentless demonic seductions of Angelique (Title available on request), and eventually more mad love and cliffs.

Critically, there’s been somewhat of a split decision on Burton’s Dark Shadows, and I guess I fall in the middle — a sometimes enthusiastic middle. The movie is dry and droll and very, very pretty, but not particularly funny, surprising or inventive, except in the ways it collides Barnabas with the ‘70s. (He thinks TV is a sorcerer‘s box filled with little sorceresses singers, and he also thinks Alice Cooper is the ugliest women he’s ever seen).

Conversely, the things that are good about Dark Shadows are things that we usually expect to go right in a Burton movie (though that doesn’t make them any less good): all those elegantly horrific and wittily lush and magnificently playful Tim Burton visuals, which summon up the world of exaggerated wonders we get from movies when we’re young.

And there’s the enticingly moviestar-ish cast. The unsmiling Depp crosses a bit of Jonathan Frid (the first immortal Barnabas, recently deceased), with Vincent Price’s tartness and Tyrone Power’s sweetness of spirit, while Pfeiffer holds the screen grade-dame-ishly, and, as always, niftily blonde-ishly. (Christopher Lee, Price’s sort of rival is here in the flesh, in a cameo. Carter chews up the film ferociously, and Moretz is is archly teenagery. The film’s great prize though, is Eva Green, who makes Angelique such a luscious strumpet and monster that she magnetizes you, drives you crazy. If there’s a revelation in Dark Shadows, it’s Green, who knocked us out opposite Daniel Craig’s Bond in Casino Royale. and has been knocking us down or out  again, by increments, ever since.

As a high-schooler, I once acted in the same theater group, the Belfry Players of Williams Bay, Wisconsin, as the TV “Dark Shadows”’ Lara Parker (whose real name was Lamar Parker), though not in the same plays. I was comic relief as the idiotic Private Rooney in “Blood, Sweat and Stanley Poole,” and Lamar performed brilliantly as the bereaved wife in “All the Way Home.” She was a very good serious actress, and she deserved a more serious career — or at least better chances than Race With the Devil. I wonder how she feels when she sees this movie and Eva Green, and gets the evidence that she had the really killer part in “Dark Shadows.”  By the way, I always though “Lamar Parker” was a much better, more memorable name than “Lara Parker.”

There’s a lot of potential in the new Depp-Burton film’s conjunction of actors, and also its mixture of horror and ‘70s pop, and sometimes Dark Shadows reaches it. There‘s almost everything Green does, in the 18th century or now (I mean, 2012). There’s an amusing scene where Barnabas hunkers down with a bunch of blissed-out hippies at a mellow night gathering, and then develops another thirst — one of the few moments when the movie lets in the reality of the Vietnam era, which it should probably do more often. There’s lot of other stuff, Burton specialties. Maybe Burton isn’t reaching his potential here, but how many of us do?

But hey, the movie entertains us, and it does so, in at least a somewhat adult way, even if it mostly tries to evoke a passion of Johnny Depp’s and Tim Burton’s youthful years. That’s not the top of the world, and it’s not even close, but it’s something. Thirsty?

Wilmington on DVDs: Alambrista!

Thursday, May 10th, 2012

PICK OF THE WEEK: CLASSIC

ALAMBRISTA! (Also Blu-ray) (Three and a Half Stars)

U.S.: Robert M. Young, 1977 (Criterion Collection)

Alambrista! — a moving and perceptive cinematic tale of a Mexican illegal immigrant and his odyssey over the border — is a movie that almost defines American film realism in the ‘70s. Those were the years, of course. of the B.B.S. films (Five Easy Pieces and The Last Picture Show), of John Cassavetes’ ultra-real psycho-dramas and of the classic cinema verite-style documentaries of Frederick Wiseman, D. A, Pennebaker and the Maysles Brothers. But few American dramatic films went as far as Alambrista! — shot neo-realist-style on the fringes of the industry with a modest budget and few constraints.

The result is a film that hasn’t really aged. Alambrista! won the first Cannes Film Festival Camera d‘Or (for best first film), and it still seems relevant and fresh — a picture made with compassion and few commercial compromises,  one that still shows us a lot about Latino working class culture and the lives and plight of illegal immigrants. Told though the eyes of the young border-crasher Roberto (Domingo Ambriz), it’s a movie that doesn’t look phony or contrived (except for the somewhat implausible plot twist toward the end involving Roberto’s father), despite the fact that most of the movie is Spanish language (subtitled), and that it was written and directed by an Anglo-American from New York who didn’t speak Spanish: Robert M. Young.

Young had already worked as a nonfiction film-maker and as writer, producer and cinematographer, on Nothing But a Man, director Michael Roemer‘s much-praised 1964 low-budget fictional drama of lower-middle-class African American life. When he made Alambrista!, Young took much of his aesthetic from American indie drama, the socially conscious TV documentaries he had worked on for much of his career before 1977, and Italian neo-realism, from which he borrowed the strategy of shooting a fictional film on real locations with a mix of professional actors and real people.

Nothing But a Man, which was also influenced by neo-realism, had used, to very good effect, a cast with professionals Ivan Dixon, Abbey Lincoln, Yaphet Kotto and Julius Harris. Alambrista, the more cinematic of the two films, was shot in Mexico and Texas, with a mixed cast. The pros include Ambriz and Trinidad Silva (as his traveling buddy Joe), both of whom later worked on “Hill Street Blues” — and established actors as well: Harris, who plays a drunk, and Ned Beatty, the prolific supporting star who had already sone his big roles in Deliverance and Network, and appears here as the nervous Anglo Coyote who bosses Roberto’s second incursion.

Thanks to the actors, the locations and Young’s strong, vigorous visual style, Alambrista! has a powerful sense of place and truth and it‘s also genuinely suspenseful and dramatic. Roberto isn‘t a congenital criminal. He’s a poor Mexican fallen on hard times and he’s looking for money to send back to his wife and family, nd we follow him through his encounters with other illegal workers, and with the ordinary or extraordinary citizens in Texas whom he meets — from the coyotes like Beatty who get him across, to the fruit-crop employers who hire him, to waitress Sharon (Linda Gillen) who befriends him and provides the film with a little adulterous romance. Through it all, we get a lasting impression of a world of outsiders, of desperate lives, dangerously lived.

At one point, Roberto and his friend Joe hop a freight, lying on the cross-spans underneath a car, and Roberto, at their stop, sees that his friend is gone, probably fallen off and killed during the ride. Young doesn’t dwell on the moment. (Neither does Roberto.) But it gives us a jolting sense of how perilous his situation really is. Like the other illegal workers, Roberto has forfeited the protection of society and lives in constant danger of being caught, deported or worse.

!Alambrista! (the official title has two exclamation points, with the first one upside down) wss a box office failure in 1977. Indeed, despite its high Cannes Festival award, it never got regular distribution, and was largely seen by audiences at colleges and through community organizations. The film was rescued in 1999 by Young and two fans/academics, David Varrasco and Nicholas J. Cull; Young recut part of the movie, and it was released as an ambitious book/DVD package in 2004 by the University of New Mexico Press.

I didn‘t see it in 1977, when I should have caught it at the Universiy of Wisconsin-Madison (where I saw most of the big political films and lots of others too as a young movie buff on one of the top movie campuses). But I remembeer the names (and the exclamation points). And I remember Young’s other ‘70s films: the prison drama Short Eyes and One Trick Pony (with writer-star Paul Simon singing his original song score), and Rich Kids (set among the wealthy kids of Young’s home turf, New York City.) He’s a filmmaker I’ve always respected, more so after seeing Alambrista!

The Criterion edition of Alambrista also contains Children of the Fields (1973), the NBC White Paper documentary on Mexican migrant workers, by Young, which inspired and led the way to his later feature. It’s fascinating to see how he carries the documentary techniques he uses in Children, over into Alambrista!, just as Ken Loach was doing in the ‘70s in Britain with Kes: the mobile camera work, the fluid cutting, the unscripted-sounding dialogue (real or improvised). That movie realism takes us deep into Roberto’s experiences and into the world of him and his fellow border crossers. We feel in the end that many of them are less predators than victims, and that’s probably true.

“Alambrista” means “tightrope walker” and it’s both a gentle film and sometimes a tragic, painful one. Perhaps it was too real for the 1977 studios who wouldn’t distribute it, though the ‘70s were the heydays of the real and the political in American movies..

Watching the film brought me back to my youth, my college days, back to Madison and an afternoon I once spent in Tijuana, when I was 12. It reminded me of how I felt in Chicago, 1968, reminded me of the violent but hopeful days of the antiwar movement, the crusades, which also part of the 70s and ‘60s. I haven’t been as hopeful since.

The poor and marginalized were treated badly then. They‘re treated badly now. So are the elderly, and the minorities or outsiders of every race and sex. (The new breed of rich kids, or kids-become-rich, go on TV and make jokes and laugh about what they call, stupidly, class warfare.) But back in 1977, Young and Alambrista!  fought, or tried to fight, with the weapons of art and truth, for many of those marginalized people. So did most of my friends, in the days of our education, our youth, when we marched and cried, naively I guess, things like “Power to the people!” Right on. (In Spanish and English, with English subtitles.)

Also:  Children of the Fields (U.S.: Robert M. Young, 1973) Three Stars. Young’s NBC White Paper documentary on an average family of Latino migrant workers, the Galindos, was the film that eventually led him to !Alambrista!; the father, Jose Galindo worked as an advisor on that later film. Played without narration, focusing on the Galindo kids (it was part of a continuing White Paper series on children around the world), the movie is remarkable for its compassion, empathy and visual beauty. In English. With interview with Young.

Extras: Commentary by Young and !Alambrista! Composer Michael Hausman; Interview with Edward James Olmos; Trailer; Booklet with essay by Charles Ramirez Berg.

Wilmington on DVDs: The Mel Brooks Collection

Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

Pick of the Week:  Box Sets

“The Mel Brooks Collection” (Blu-Ray) (Three and a Half Stars)
U.S.; Mel Brooks & Alan Johnson, 1970-1993 (20th Century Fox/MGM)


It’s good to be the King…But sometimes, it‘s better to be the Kaminsky.
Mel Kaminsky, a.k.a. Mel Brooks, presents nine of his funnier features, from 1970’s The Twelve Chairs to 1993”s Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Brooks wrote or co-wrote all of them, directed all but one: his 1983 remake of Ernst Lubitsch‘s  “To Be or Not To Be, which was (man)-handled by “Producers” choreographer Alan Johnson.
Speaking of  The Producers, the 1968 version of which is easily one of the funniest movies ever made (“ Is it good? I mean, is it bad?”),  it’s also one of the Mel-movies that isn’t here. And its absence lowers the laugh quotient considerably. (“It’s a catastrophe…This play is guaranteed to close…on page four!”) But that still leaves a pretty high yock average, enough to pulverize any decently susceptible audience, even those, like our old friend and legendary film critic Jean-Luc Le Petomaine, who object to flatulence and fart jokes. (“’Springtime for Hitler: A Gay Romp with Adolph and Eva in Berschtesgaden.’ Wow!”)
The set includes a 120-page coffee-table — or maybe a demi-tasse table — book. But I couldn’t read mine because somebody spilled coffee all over it. It didn’t matter. As a great, tragic hero once said: “Never underestimate the power of the Schwartz.” Yeah. And it’s good to be the Blu-ray!
Includes: The Twelve Chairs (U.S.; Mel Brooks, 1970). Three and a Half Stars. Ron Moody, Frank Langella and Dom DeLuise (“Oh God, you’re so strict!”) run around old Russia, looking for a fortune hidden in one of a dozen chairs. Brooks’ second funniest performance as a mad peasant. (“It’s good to be the serf.“) Based on a “Your Show of Shows” sketch by Nikolai Gogol, Neil Simon and Anton Chekhov. Very funny. Brooks should cut down on movie parodies, and make more like this one and The Producers.
Blazing Saddles (U.S.; Brooks, 1974). Four Stars. Brooks sends up Westerns, producing the finest sagebrush gibberish since Howard Hughes’ The Outlaw. Starring Gene Wilder and Cleavon Little, backed by Madeleine Kahn, Harvey Korman, Brooks and Slim Pickens. Frankie Laine‘s finest hour — or finest three minutes — at least since “Rawhide.” But what idiot nixed Richard Pryor for the lead, after the comic helped Brooks write all those jokes intended for himself? (“Pardon me while I whip this out.”) What was the theory? No chemistry between Pryor and Gene Wilder? Sheesh…

“Young Frankenstein (U.S.; Brooks, 1974). Four Stars. Frankenstein unchained, unbound, unkempt, upsent and unplugged. With Gene Wilder as “Victor Fronkenstein,” Peter Boyle as the monster, Marty Feldman as Eye-gore, Gene Jackman as the blind benefactor and Madeleine Kahn, Teri Garr and Cloris Leachman as horror-babes. Heye-larious.

Silent Movie (U.S.; Brooks, 1976). Three Stars. Brooks tries to bring back silent movies, added by Feldman, DeLuise, Bernadette Peters, Sid Caesar, Paul Newman, Liza Minnelli, James Caan, Anne Bancroft, Burt Reynolds, and, of course, Marcel Marceau.  (“Non!”) No truth to the rumor that this movie’s sound track was lost in the same fire that destroyed Carl Dreyer’s Passion of Joan of Arc.
High Anxiety (U.S.; Brooks, 1977). Three Stars. Brooks sends up Alfred Hitchcock, aided by Kahn, Leachman and Korman, with script assistance from Barry Levinson. Guaranteed to give you Vertigo. I hate to say it, but the movie could have used Gene Wilder. And also Cary Grant.

The History of the World, Part One (U.S.; Brooks, 1981). Three and a Half Stars. History. With Brooks, Korman, Kahn, Leachman, Caesar — and Shecky Greene. Where’s Henny Youngman as Nero? (“Take Rome, please.”) Where’s the sequel? It’s good to be the auteur. To Be or Not To Be (U.S.: Alan Johnson, 1983). Two and a Half Stars. (“So they call me Concentration Camp Erhard!“) Lubitsch remade. Bancroft laughs. Annie and Brooks try to reincarnate Carole Lombard and Jack Benny. Well…Charles Durning, Christopher Lloyd and Jose Ferrer support.  Okay, but this movie proves The Importance of Being Ernst.
Spaceballs (U.S.; Brooks, 1987).  Two and a Half Stars. “May the Schwartz be with you.” Brooks, as wise old Yogurt, sends up Star Wars” assisted by John Candy, Rick Moranis, and Bill Pullman. Here’s where the joke begins to wear thin, or thinner. Whatever.  The Schwartz wasn‘t with them. Robin Hood: Men in Tights (U.S.; Brooks, 1993). Two and a Half Stars. Brooks sends up Robin Hood, assisted by Cary Elwes, Roger Rees and Tracey Ullmann. In like Flynn, it ain’t. But Brooks makes a good Rabbi Tuchman. (“This castle is guaranteed to close…on page four!”)


   Extras: 120-page coffee table book, complete with easy-assemble coffee table.  And, in twelve unmarked box sets: Life-size replica of Brooks as Yogurt and the complete  original play script of Franz Kinder’s “Springtime for Hitler.”

Wilmington on DVDs: Haywire

Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

PICK OF THE WEEK: NEW

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

U.S.: Steven Soderbergh, 2012 (Lionsgate)

Director Steven Soderbergh is a jack-of-all-trades (steve-of-all-trades?), who, in his new movie Haywire, also does his own cinematography (billed as Peter Andrews) and his own editing — and does them all, as we know, very well. Gina Carano is a Jill-of-one-trade, a mixed martial arts champion here branching out into acting and movie superstardom (in no particular order). Ms. Carano does her own fighting and chases and stunts — like Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee, and almost as well.

The two of them join forces here in Mayhem — excuse me, Haywire — which is a standard, unsurprising, but very well done mix of martial arts ass-kicker and nightmare thriller, written by Lem Dobbs without a trace of personal involvement — unless he has martial arts obsessions we don‘t know about. Dobbs previously collaborated with Soderbergh on the moody black-and-white sort-of-bio Kafka and on The Limey, one of my favorite neo-noirs, and Dobbs may be trying to show his versatility too — traveling all the way from his first Soderbergh movie, an obscure literary art film, to this hell-breaking-loose actioner, where one wouldn‘t guess that he was ever personally involved with any books, let alone Kafka‘s.

Carano plays Mallory Kane, an ex- U.S. Marine and daughter of another ex-U.S. Marine named John Kane, played (well, of course) by Bill Paxton. When we first meet Mallory, in a New York diner, she’s kicking the crap out of Channing Tatum (as Aaron), and she goes on in the course of the film to kick the crap out off, or in some way verbally intimidate or ball-bust, a gallery (guyery?) that includes, or might include, Michael Fassbender (as Paul), Michael Douglas and Ewan McGregor (as her bosses, Coblenz and Kenneth), Antonio Banderas (as Rodrigo), Mathieu Kassovitz (as Studer) and various others — while relating the entire misadventure to Michael Angarano (as Scott), while they speed away from the diner in Scott‘s car, westbound.

The various other locations for all this, present to past and back again, include Barcelona, Dublin and New Mexico. And they have one constant: Wherever they are, wherever Mallory is, sooner or later somebody will kick the crap out of somebody else, and the kicker is usually Gina Carano, while the kickee is usually male and a high-salaried movie star, playing some sort of sleazebag. All of this is smothered in Bourne-Again intrigue and double-dealing and paranoia. But since we know Gina is doing her own stunts (and her own kicking) it gives you pause. Is this the price of stardom? What happens to Gina 20 years from now? V8 commercials?

Steven Soderbergh is smooth, and he’s never smoother than when he’s engaged in some big crime thriller — whether it’s one of the Oceans or something brainier and more realistic, like Traffic. I had mixed feelings about Haywire, though. I liked it okay, I guess. But I should have liked it more, since it’s the same type of rock-’em-sock-’em wish-fulfiller as The Limey — a classy Soderbergh actioner where a somewhat effete-looking British oldster (Terence Stamp, or should we call him Terrence Stomp) surprises the bad guys by kicking the stuffings out of them.

That’s the deal with Gina Carano, and maybe it will make her a superstar. But, though I’m hip to the charms of stoicism in action movies, I thought Ms. C.  needed to give a little more, and show a little more verbal and emotional style than she does here. As for the rest of the cast, they have my condolences. Guys, what can I say? It’s one thing to be upstaged by a newcomer; it’s another to be annihilated.

Extras: Featurettes; Trailers.

 

 

Wilmington on DVDs: Tim and Eric’s Billion Dollar Movie

Wednesday, May 9th, 2012

TIM & ERIC’S BILLION DOLLAR MOVIE (Also Blu-ray/DVD Combo, with Digital Copy) (One Half Star)
U.S.: Tim Heidecker-Eric Wareheim, 2012 (Magnolia)

I have just one thing to say about this sorry excuse for a movie — this nauseatingly taste-challenged, almost putrefyingly preposterous goulash of scatological gags, failed nonsense, barf jokes, poop jokes, piddle jokes, and jokes that make you want to barf, poop and piddle — one thing to say about this inanely unfunny, deliberately misdirected or undirected farce about two nincompoops named Tim and Eric (played with zero zest by the cult comedy writer-directors Tim Heidecker and Eric Wareheim, of the prize-winning, well-regarded web series “Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job!”), who blow a billion dollars of mob money (the Schlaaang Mob, run by Robert Loggia as demented gangster Tommy Schlaaang and William Atherton as right-hand crook Earle Swinter) spending it all on a moronic movie, starring an inept Johnny Depp impersonator (Ronnie Rodriguez), and are consequently marked for either full psyment of the squandered billion or a double-whack by the Schlaaang gang… but who manage to escape to the heartland and the sleazily ramshackle and falling-apart-at-the-seams Swallow Valley Shopping Mall –a bankrupt commercial “mecca” whose gallery of failing schlock shops are a sure cure for shopaholics — a hellhole inhabited by more idiots and a wolf or two, including the uncredited John C. Reilly as the affably deranged halfwit Taquito, the uncredited Will Ferrell as the stomach-churning con guy Damien Weebs, the uncredited Zach Galifianakis as the rustic simpleton Jim Joe Kelly (at least I think he was a rustic simpleton), Jeff Goldblum as “Chef” Goldblum, Twink Caplan as the strong-stomached love interest Katie, some poor shmo who owns a boutique that sells used toilet paper (this is not a joke), and the uncredited Bozo McWhizzy, in a cameo appearance as a talking hemorrhoid (this is) — all of whom should have refused credit but all of whom nonetheless take part courageously in this less than socko if mind-bogglingly daring entertainment in a series of quasi-comedy scenes so lacking in comedy that they seemed to have been dreamed up by the Society for the Prevention of Laughter for a semi-annual telethon on stamping out humor — a mind-boggling fiasco that sometimes made me feel as I’d been shrunk to the size of The Incredible Shrinking Man and dropped into a spittoon… in any case, I have zero stars and, as I said a while back, one word for the flabbergasting dreck that is Bill & Ted’s Billion Dollar Movie (excuse me, Tim and Eric’s Excellent Adventure, er Billion Dollar Movie).

Awful.

Wilmington on Movies: The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

Tuesday, May 8th, 2012
THE BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL (Three Stars)
U.K.: John Madden, 2012
Some countries have massive oil deposits; some have world-class vineyards; some have large veins of silver or gold. England is blessed with a huge, constantly replenished reservoir of prime acting talent. They’re a nation that probably has more great (and good) stage and movie actors than any other place that leaps to mind. (All that and Shakespeare too.)
A goodly number of those first-class English actors (seven) play sizable roles in the sparkling ensemble of the highly likable and engaging new British film The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. Expertly, poignantly and wittily, they portray seven elderly or more middle-aged Londoners who have responded to (or fallen for) the persuasive and colorful advertisements for an establishment called, also, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.
This Hotel happens to be a supposedly upscale lodging place in Jaipur, India, for British retirees. And these guests are a treasure house of British theatrical and film talent: Tom Wilkinson as Graham Dashwood (a judge who grew up in India), Maggie Smith as Muriel Donnelly (a longtime housekeeper seething with prejudice), Ronald Pickup as Norman Cousins (unattached and still on the prowl), Celia Imre as Maggie Hardcastle (ditto), Bill Nighy and Penelope Wilton as Douglas and Jean Ainslie (a solidly incompatible couple) and, also serving as the film‘s narrator (through her blog), Judi Dench as the warm-hearted, cast-adrift widow Evelyn Greenslade.
The movie — based by director John Madden and screenwriter Ol Parker on Deborah Moogach‘s novel, “These Foolish Things“ — is a nice little comedy-drama, intelligently made and beautifully designed and shot. But the acting is what makes it special. That glittering cast of British senior stars are a magnificent seven, and it might have been even more so. Peter O’Toole and Julie Christie were originally slotted for the roles played by Pickup and Imre (not that those two are in any way deficient), but were somehow lost along the way. (Salaries?) A pity, because O’Toole and Christie, two recent Oscar nominees, are among the dispiritingly large number of great movie actors (and great British actors) whom we don’t see often enough, thanks to the seemingly ingrained ageism of the movies. We don’t get enough of them, and many others.  It would have been a great treatdelight to watch the man who played Lawrence of Arabia and the woman who played Lara, in Exotic dalliance, in the roles intended for them here.

But, of course, we should be thankful for the seven we have, and also for their junior colleagues in the movie, including the actor, Dev Patel, who plays their much younger host, the burblingly enthusiastic and self-deceiving Sonny Kapoor. Sonny owns the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (inherited from his father), and he also manages it, has prepared the glowing advertising — and has, shall we say, exaggerated. Compared to most luxury hotels, the Exotic is a little seedy, and, thanks to Sonny, not particularly well-run — though I’ve got to admit, with its classic Satyajit-Ray-film décor, it looked great to me.

Patel’s face will be familiar; he played the contestant on Slumdog Millionaire. Perhaps he was a bit intimidated by his fellow actors here — as well he should be — because he tends to overplay a little. Not too much, but it’s noticeable when you compare him with his older British castmates – with such masters of subtlety and insight as Wilkinson and Dench, such a grande dame of stylish wit as Maggie Smith (here doing to the servant class, what she usually does to the rich), and such a wizard of the odd and offbeat as Nighy — as well as such sturdy artists of emotion or humor as Pickup, Imre and Wilton.

The seven guests are the key to the tale, and they’re the reason to watch the film. Madden and Parker devote some time to Sonny’s problems with his lovely fiancee, Suneina (Tena Desae), and with his stubborn mother (Lillete Dubey), crises that include both the travails of hotel management and of potential marrriage in a society with a tradition of arranged marriages. But mostly what we follow — and what we’re primarily interested in — are the star guests.

The most poignant turn belongs to Wilkerson as Graham, portraying, with great restraint and keen perception, a gay man at the end of his life trying to re-connect with the Indian friend who was the love of his life, whom he hasn’t seen since youth, and whom he believes he permanently wronged. The most likeable guest is Dench as Evelyn, beguilingly showing us the difficulties of  adjusting to life without the person (her late husband) who shaped and ordered her routines. The funniest is Smith. A genius of timing as always, she starts off the movie as an outspoken bigot, and undergoes that gratifying change of heart we see often enough in movies and too seldom in life.

Imre and Pickup, as Madge and Norman, show us that sex springs eternal — and Nighy and Wilton, as the incompatible Ainslies, show us that rotten marriages do as well. It’s a delight watching all of them. The direction by Madden — who gave Judi Dench one of her finest hours, and also her finest ten minutes, in Mrs. Brown and Shakespeare in Love — keeps the film’s gentler and more languorous pace humming and the comedy and drama smoothly interwoven. If there’s a problem with the film, it’s in the script, which is a bit too pat, a bit too brisk . Things happen, we feel, not because they inevitably would happen to those people in that place, but because we expect them in a story like this.

SPOILER ALERT

Arguments flare up at the right moment; problems are solved with implausible inevitability; people even die on schedule. The script, while good in some respects, lacks the sort of life (or theatrical life) that all films need and that the best actors, the brdt Brits particularly, always supply, and that they supply here.

END OF ALERT

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is still an often admirable show, and it’s especially laudable in its ambition to show us the kind of people too often marginalized in our own movies: old people, who often love movies and usually have time to watch them, yet remain a market unwisely untapped. That market is well-mined well here, by England‘s main resource, some of its glorious actors. So The Exotic Hotel is good, but it could have been better.

Oh well, Life could be better. And, come to think of it, there’s nothing wrong with a nice little comedy-drama.

Wilmington on Movies: The Avengers

Sunday, May 6th, 2012

THE AVENGERS (Three and a Half Stars)
U. S.: Joss Whedon, 2012

“We need a plan of attack.”

– Steve Rogers/Captain America

“I have a plan: Attack!”

– Tony Stark/Iron Man

1. Of Hulks and Iron Men and Smashes

As you watch the mega-hit movie The Avengers on screen, galloping toward its kajillions in grosses, it’s perfectly obvious that the people who made it — especially Joss Whedon who co-wrote and directed — want to give us the ultimate comic-book super-hero movie.

These guys aren’t horsing around. They want to make something ass-kickingly fabulous out of this ensemble super-movie — this all-star mega-picture that brings together (for the first time) seven of Stan Lee’s Marvel comic book superstars in their big-movie super-reincarnations: Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, director of S.H.I.E.L.D., Chris Evans’ Captain America, Chris Hemsworth’s Thor, Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow, Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye, The Hulk (now played by Mark Ruffalo), and the group’s star of stars and champion wisecracker, Tony Stark a.k.a. Iron Man (played to the hilt by Robert Downey, Jr.).

As they all gather together in one big super-nosh, trading quips and flexing muscles and tossing verbal barbs and flaunting super-powers, we get to know them better, and so do they — like Superman and Batman did when they accidentally spotted each other’s secret identities as Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne, shipboard, in, I believe, an old Action Comics. These fantastic seven have impressive digs too; they’re mostly sequestered in a huge bizarre sometimes-invisible flying, floating aircraft helicarrier, preparing to face the challenge of the skinny, villainous Loki of Asgard (Tom Hiddleston), a meanie with a truly sinister smile who’s trying to steal the precious Tesseract, open up a space portal, engage a space army, and conquer Earth, or at least midtown Manhattan.

We can only feel glad (and lucky) that the Avengers are on our side, and not Loki’s. (Sorry.) We can thank our superstars that Joss Whedon is with us, that Stan Lee is our (and their) Generalissmo, and that they called the shots (past and present) along with co-writer Zak Penn and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey and composer Alan Silvestri and production designer James Chinlund and producer Kevin Feige and all the technical people. Where would we be if they’d all signed up with the Bad Guys?

2 . Joss and  The Generalissmo

The plot of The Avengers (not to be confused with the well-loved ‘60s British series with Diana Rigg as Emma Peel) is standard. Loki zips in from Asgard, where he spent the last Thor movie bedeviling Thor — swipes the tesseract, hangs around the heli-carrier for a while, and then unleashes his invasion, highlighted by a a flying, undulating, Transformerish mechanical beastie that would give even the most jaded Manhatttanites pause, especially if they saw it undulating above them on Fifth Avenue or thereabouts.

But fierce Loki has a fiercer antagonist in Fury — who has been monitoring other Marvel movies, like Iron Man and Thor and Captain America, for the last several years, dropping trailer-teasers. Aware of Loki’s evil designs, Fury assembles the Dream Team, and lets them dance around and strut their stuff and trade put-downs for a while — before they have to go up against Loki, who makes it clear (in Germany, no less) that Fascism is his thing, and that he wants to revive the spirit of Adolf Hitler (or maybe Franz Kindler) and keep the world free from freedom.

Fat chance. Even though the story-line and the script-structure are achingly familiar, and we pretty much know everything that’s going to happen before it does (except perhaps part of the big Iron Man scene at the end), The Avengers makes it clear from the start (from before the start, if you count all the teasers in other Marvel movies) that this isn’t going to be your standard night at the multiplex, with a large diet coke, a large popcorn, some idiots yacking it up behind you, and too many previews. Instead, it‘s something that — if the creators have their way — may go mind-bogglingly beyond all the other super-hero movies: beyond Donner and Lester‘s Supermans, Sam Raimi‘s Spider-Mans, Jon Favreau‘s first Iron Man, and any other super-benchmark that might come to mind.

But it’s also obvious that these filmmakers — or at least some of them (or at least Whedon) — don’t regard that particular feat (i.e.: becoming king of the superhero-movie hill) as the massive, epic triumph of art and technology and high finance, that many of the movie’s fans (or fan boys) want to see and will. All-time super-grosses be damned. There’s a wry and decidedly irreverent edge to much of The Avengers. The movie keeps suggesting that Whedon (best known as the creator/writer of the modern TV classics “Firefly” and “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) is hip to the game, that — even though he loves comic books and super-heroes, and likes this type of movie (his all-time favorite show is said by IMDB to be The Matrix) — Whedon is also quite aware that much of the comic book movie super-hero template is repetitive and smotheringly predictable and often a bit silly.

That’s why Downey’s Tony Stark is around, with his bemused not-quite-grin, and his late night TV host wiliness and speed, and why he has so many good zinger lines (the most effective of which may be the borrowed “Hulk, smash!”). Downey is the voice of the audience’s more subversive, more adult side and he’s like the smart-asses in Scream, continually kidding the very conventions that entrap him.

That’s also probably why the first part of the movie goes easier on the action than you’d expect, and why it has the six crime busters in their various alter-egos or not-so-secret identities (Steve Rogers a.k.a. Captain America, Tony Stark/Iron Man, Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow, Clint Barber/Hawkeye, Thor/Thor and Bruce Banner/The Hulk), teasing and ragging on and insulting each other. These clever dialogue scenes are actually more important to the movie’s final impact (and better written and directed) than the climactic showpiece half-hour battle scene. (Shrewdly, the movie supplies the sarcastic Tony/Iron Man and the tormented Hulk for the left-wing side of the audience, straight-arrow patriot Captain America for the right-wingers, Nick Fury for African-Americans, Black Widow for feminists, and Hawkeye and The Hulk for — oh, I don‘t know, maybe for archery enthusiasts and people with weight or anger management problems. )

Snappy dialogue, of course, was also a big part of Stan Lee‘s game plan on the classic Marvel comics of the ‘60s and ‘70s, and a very big part of their appeal. Lee’s original characters were (those words again) knowing and .hip, and the big fights that climaxed most of the stories almost always had the superheroes and supervillains trading snappy quips and impertinent wisecracks, while they bashed and thrashed and totaled each other. Those superheroes also had psychological problems, depth and emotional traumas as well. (The classic cases were the Hulk and Spider-Man.) Lee’s Marvel books — and I read a lot of them in the ‘60s, especially after Robert Benton and David Newman gave them a boost in their great piece on The New Sentimentality in Esquire — were the equivalent of a wised-up genre movie with a lot of inside gags. Of this movie, in fact. (Lee, by the way, appears here briefly as himself, before the big battle, sarcastically jibing “Superheroes in New York? Give me a break!“)

3. I’ve Got a Gun in My Mouth, but I Like the Taste of Metal

Iron Man, Tony Stark, Robert Downey Jr, The Avengers

Among the big Hollywood stars right now, Robert Downey seems to me as potentially great a movie actor as any other player America has – and part of the reason is that, like most of the best, he makes complex things look easy, He also isn‘t afraid to dig deep down and he doesn’t leave his fellow actors stranded: He interacts as well as he acts. (If anything is holding Downey back, it may be his recent choice of projects, or possibly the fact that he doesn‘t rate himself that highly. But since he doesn’t have to prove himelf commercially after this, now’s the time for him to take some bigger chances on parts and movies.

Here, it’s not that Downey is pushed forward to the detriment of his fellow actors. He and Mark Ruffalo, as the new Bruce Banner (an inspired choice), are the principle scene-stealers in The Avengers. But they leave plenty for their castmates too, and so does Whedon. As writer-director, Whedon doesn’t seem to play favorites at all; he gives showcase scenes to every one of his top stars, and to some of the supporting players too, like Clark Gregg as the moony federal agent Coulson and one time Bergman actor Stellan Skarsgard as good guy turned bad, Selvig. The great Polish writer-director Jerzy Skolimowksi (Moonlighting, Walkover) also shows up briefly as one of the Russians interrogating Black Widow, and he makes an impression too. If these kinds of movies usually aren’t actor’s shows at all, Whedon and his cast play hob with that cliché.

He makes it a technician’s show too. Tellingly, the cinematographer, Seamus McGarvey, isn’t an action specialist, but instead usually shoots psychological art films or smart entertainments (We Need to Talk About Kevin, Atonement, Nowhere Boy, The Hours, High Fidelity). McGarvey’s next assignment is an adaptation of Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina”  for director Joe Wright. Here, in concert with the effects people, McGarvey and designer Chinlund (also an art film specialist, with a list of credits that includes Darren Aronofsky‘s The Fountain and Requiem for a Dream and Spike Lee‘s The 25th Hour), create images that are cutting and fresh, but never too over-powering, even though they’re often as jampacked and paranoiacally detailed as the usual sci-fi actioner.

4.. “I love clichés. All the great artists use them.”

– Roman Polanski

Of all the Marvel movies, the only ones that really seem to me to have that old Lee zing are 2008’s Iron Man and this one — and they‘re also the ones that, along with Spider-Man, have the most emotion. (The ending of The Avengers is almost a killer.) This suggests that producer Feige and the others (or whoever) were right when they picked Whedon, who’s primarily been a writer-producer, and whose other feature directorial credit was for the 2005 Serenity, the continuation of his maverick science fiction series “Firefly.”

Throughout The Avengers, Whedon seems to want us to know he enjoys movies like this (or at least some of them), and that he’s going to give us exactly what this kind of show is supposed to deliver. But he also wants us to know that he‘s a smart guy who knows the score (just like Tony Stark), and that he wants his superheroes to be smart and know the score too — and to appeal to audiences who couldn’t care less (going in) what Thor and Loki were quarreling about in Asgard, or what Loki intends to unleash on Earth, or whether Tony and his dynamite-looking partner Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) are an item or not, or whether the Hulk gets along with Thor, or Iron Man gets along with Captain America, and whether any of the guys clicks with Black Widow, or whether Nick Fury can figure out a way to save the world, or when the big half-hour super-battle gets going — or even if there is a half-hour super-battle.

Like William Shakespeare, the next writer Whedon is adapting (for the new movie adaptation of “Much Ado About Nothing“), Whedon, who’s as much a fan of the Bard of Avon as he is of the Dudes of Matrix, wants to appeal to the groundlings and the people in the cheap seats, as well as the lords and ladies (or the lordly intellectuals) in the boxes — even though, in the multiplexes, there are no cheap seats.

5. Shoot the Piano Player

Peope have knocked its writing, but, in a way, The Avengers is more of a writer’s movie than most of the other Marvels. Not that this movie hasn’t been drowned in big stars, production values, special effects and surprisingly good 3D (it has), but because Whedon has put the kind of swing and snazz and panache in the writing that Stan Lee had in his heyday, and that most superhero movies, including most of the Marvel ones, don‘t. That’s also probably why The Avengers has mostly received such good reviews — because we critics tend to like well-written movies even though we often try to analyze those same show as director’s movies.

Whedon eliminates that problem here by filling both roles, which is what Francois Truffaut originally meant by the term “auteur.” And, for better or worse, he’ll probably be directing from now ‘til doomsday. He’s earned it. The Avengers has gotten mostly good reviews as well as humongous record-smashing world box office, even though some thoughtful critics have panned or half-panned it, some mentioning that just don’t care for the genre. Well, to tell the truth, I don’t care for the genre either, even though, as a kid or young adult, I used to devour Marvel comics. Many intelligent critics didn’t care for movie westerns at the time of The Searchers and Rio Bravo, for musicals at the time of Singin’ in the Rain and The Band Wagon, or for film noir at the time of Detour and The Big Sleep. They were wrong. Maybe we’re wrong — or some of us are. (Maybe not.)

In any case — or “anyhoo,” as my friend FNB likes to say — I think you’d have to be a little stubborn not to realize and admit that The Avengers is about as good as this movie genre can get. (So is the first Iron Man). And it’s so good because so many good or great people are contributing to it, and because the filmmakers seem to enjoy, and make us enjoy, the human drama and human emotion and human comedy as much as the undulating mechanical beasties and smash-ups and mini-armageddons. You can even dig a serious theme out of it: the battle netweeen good and evil. (I know, I know…)

But even if we (or I) would rather see the same attention and care and talent — and money — devoted these days to adapting more of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Raymond Chandler or Cormac McCarthy, or of tackling larger, riskier subjects and grander themes in original screenplays, The Avengers has a lot to offer. Whedon’s movie amuses you and moves you and excites you, and at times, it just impresses the living hell out of you — even if, in many ways, it’s much ado about nothing.

Wilmington on DVDs: Scarlet Street

Friday, May 4th, 2012

Pick of the Week: Classic

Scarlet Street (Blu-ray) (Four Stars)
U.S.; Fritz Lang, 1945 (Kino Video).

1. Fritz Lang and Scarlet Street
Scarlet Street — a great Golden Age movie that takes us to the lower depths of a lost soul in Greenwich Village – is generally regarded as one of the classic film noirs, as well as director Fritz Lang‘s highest Hollywood achievement. It is.

Adapted from another film classic, Jean Renoir‘s lively and perverse 1931 French crime movie La Chienne, Lang’s vintage noir has one of the unforgettable Golden Age screen triangles: Joan Bennett as a classically slutty femme fatale, Dan Duryea as her pricelessly sleazy pimp-lover, and Edward G. Robinson solid as a volcano as Chris Cross, a part based on Michel Simon’s old role, in La Chienne, of the henpecked husband cashier/painter who stumbles, out of love and lust, into the dark side. They’re reputed to be one of the best noir threesomes. They are.

Scarlet Street was made in the high noir year of 1945 and it has a top pedigree behind the camera. There was Lang himself — maker of the darkly magnificent German epics and crime thrillers Metropolis, Die Nibelungen, Spies, the Dr. Mabuse films, and the American drime and war classics Fury, You Only Live Once and Hangmen Also Die, and the all time crime movie masterpiece M.

It was produced by Lang together with (uncredited) Bennett’s husband Walter Wanger (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), scripted by Dudley Nichols (The Informer, Stagecoach), photographed by Milton Krasner (The Set-Up), art-directed by Alexander Golitzen (Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent), and based, like Renoir’s picture, on the novel and play by Georges de La Fouchardiere and Andre Mouezy-Eon. It’s a compelling tale of exploitation, adultery and murder: a nightmare that sings.

The movie is set in that little Manhattan sub-island of art and politics and sin, Greenwich Village, in 1934. (The look though, is pure ‘40s.) At a convivial, well-liquored employee party for a local bank, Chris Cross (Robinson), trusted cashier, is about to receive the standard gift for “25 years of faithful service” from his suave, silver-haired boss J. J. Hogarth (Russell Hicks) — a gold watch, with inscription — right before J. J., who’s as old or older than Chris, rushes off for a hot limousine date with an adoring blonde bombshell, admiringly spied on from above by his employees. “I wonder what it would be like to be loved by a young girl like that,” Chris muses to a work friend as they stroll toward the subway. Fate answers him almost immediately.

Across the dark, wet, shiny street of one of those memorable film noir night-city sets (done by three-time Oscar-winner Golitzen, one of whose awards was for To Kill a Mockingbird), the beautiful young Katherine “Kitty” March is being beaten and kicked, even as she lies on the sidewalk, by the decidedly-less-than-gallant Johnny Prince (Duryea, in one of his expertly nasty villain performances). Chris rushes to her aid, beats off the decidedly-less-than-brave Johnny with his umbrella, and walks Katherine home, then invites her for a coffee. Kitty is not too bright a conversationalist, but she has soft dark eyes, Hedy Lamarr hair and a big bosom, and she knows men. Chris is quickly smitten — love-happy enough to rent Katherine an apartment where she can live and he can paint (his life-long Sunday hobby), paid for partly by money he starts to pilfer from the bank accounts.

What Chris doesn’t realize is that Kitty is a professional whore, Johnny is her pimp, and Johnny isn’t  shy about fleecing him for everything he’s got — especially since Chris has lied and told Kitty he was a wealthy artist. Furthermore, despite the physical abuse, she’s crazy about that slimy streetwise cur Johnny: “Jeepers, I love you Johnny,” she likes to tell him, while he calls her “Lazy Legs.“ And Johnny’s regular appearances at the apartment, in full smirk — sometimes with Kitty’s embittered fashion model girlfriend Millie (played by a slightly masculine-acting Margaret Lindsay) — greatly disturb Chris, who can’t quite recognize Kitty’s nocturnal assailant in the grinning high-pants glad-hander Johnny who keeps popping up at Kitty’s like a thousand bad pennies.

Meanwhile, Chris’ home life is a hell of bullying and verbal abuse from his harridan wife Adele (the perfectly cast Rosalind Ivan), who keeps carping about the smell of paint (before Chris gets his studio), and ceaselessly singing the praises of her late husband, a real man (as opposed to Chris, who’s often either painting or in an apron), “Patch-Eye” Higgins, played by that excellent porcine character actor, Charles Kemper (The Southerner, Wagon Master, On Dangerous Ground).

But things change,  strangely enough, even though the same plaintive big band ballad, “:Melancholy Baby,” keeps echoing and re-echoing on the sound track, like an anthem of the sentimental inner life Chris can’t expose. and that may doom him.

Through some only slightly outrageous coincidences, Chris‘s somewhat Frida Kahlo-like paintings are shown by Greenwich Village sidewalk painter Pop le Jon (Vladimir Sokoloff, the evil landlord of Renoir’s The Lower Depths) and spotted by pretentious big-time art critic David Janeway (Jess Barker). Since Johnny — who was trying to peddle the paintings for walking-around money — has falsely attributed them to Kitty and gotten her to sign them, and since, when Janeway meets Katherine to check out her other work, she has the same soft dark eyes and Hedy Lamarr hair that struck Chris, and Janeway has the same reaction, Kitty, in a way, is set to become the media pet painter. the Jean-Michel Basquiat, if not the Andy Warhol, of her day.

Oddly enough, Chris doesn‘t seem to mind the subterfuge and the theft of his work — partly because he doesn’t believe that his paintings, if the art experts had seen the real painter as he really was, would have aroused the same response. (He‘s probably right, even though tastemaker Janeway first became enthusiastic after seeing the paintings by themselves.) Chris is happy, because he thinks he’s found out what it’s like to be loved by a young girl, what it’s like to be admired and maybe even adored — and even, second hand, what it’s like to have your art appreciated, at last.

SPOILER ALERT

But this is one of the darkest of all the classic noirs — as well as one of the most complex, plot-wise. And before the darkness closes down completely, on a view of a man alone, his life shattered, his job and friends and future gone, his existence turned into a cruel joke, endlessly tortured and humiliated by voices (“Lazy Legs!” “Jeepers, I love you Johnny!”) — those voices that keep softly and insistently running through his brain — we will have sampled the anguish and delight of life at its worst, Lang and noir at their best.

END OF SPOILER

2. Edward G. Robinson and the City of Night

Lang‘s personal favorite of all his American movies (his favorite among his German films was M), Scarlet Street pulls us into that special noir world we recognize from the other great dark hard-boiled, high-style masterpieces of the ‘40s: Double Indemnity, The Big Sleep, the 1946 The Killers, Out of the Past, Laura, Detour, Criss Cross, Phantom Lady, Raw Deal, Caught, T-Men, Gun Crazy, Force of Evil, and The Maltese Falcon — a world of shadowy buildings and glistening, rain-slickened streets, of hot jazz wailing in an after-hours bar or a seething dance hall, of sultry dames with low-cut dresses and inviting eyes, of cynical hard-guys wearing rain coats and tipped fedoras, cigarettes drooping from their lips and guns clenched in their pockets, of killers to whom slaughter is just a job, nothing personal, and of maniacs and psychos for whom it’s very personal indeed. It’s that dangerous film domain — inspired by writers like Chandler and Hammett and Cain and executed by directors like Hawks and Huston and Wilder and Siodmak (and Lang) — of suspicious cops and trigger-happy gunsels and wise cracking shamuses and suave gangsters and fall guys and femmes fatales, and of corpses who keep showing up uninvited in the rooms and the alleys, crimes that flare up beneath the neon signs and knife through the darkness like a shiv in the ribs, a scream in the night, a bullet in the heart.

You know the place. You’ve been there before. You’ll go there again. It’s the city whose king and queen were Bogart and Bacall, and it’s also the city of sleepy-eyed tough guy Robert Mitchum and short-fused John Garfield and hot Barbara Stanwyck and that chump Fred MacMurray; of Robert Ryan and Burt Lancaster and the nastier Kirk Douglas and mercurial Edmond O’Brien and va-va voom Ava Gardner and naughty Gloria Grahame and hapless Elisha Cook, Jr. Of Laird Cregar and Claire Trevor and two-faced Mary Astor and the evil duo of hysterical Peter Lorre and urbane fatman Sydney Greenstreet, and of quintessential B-movie heavy Raymond Burr and tall stern Sterling Hayden and falsetto-giggling Richard Widmark and Jimmy Cagney, yelling his lungs out at the top of the world.
 
And, apropos of Scarlet Street, it’s the city of Edward G. Robinson, a.k.a. Emmanuel Goldenberg. One of Film Noir’s First Citizens. Eddie Robinson could play it tough and mean (Key Largo), or sharp and upright (Double Indemnity), or meek and beleaguered (The Whole Town’s Talking), or scared and confused (The Woman in the Window), or relentless and moralistic (Orson Welles’ The Stranger), or lovable and paternal (Our Vines Have Tender Grapes), or just plain kill-crazy (Little Caesar). He’s at least a little bit of all of those in Scarlet Street. But mostly, he’s a basically good man gone horribly, horribly wrong. He‘s the classic upstanding citizen who makes one false step and stumbles into Hell. He’s Chris Cross, the perfect patsy.
 
Scarlet Street fools us a little in the beginning. It presents Chris as a nice guy, modest, talented but unappreciated as an artist, a troubled but kindly man caught in a well-paid but uninspiring job (counting up the cash and locking it away), and in a domestic trap with an awful wife — a discontented man who reaches out for something more beautiful, more stimulating. It presents Kitty as a brainless but street-smart bitch and Johnny as a stupid but street-smart, selfish little rat.
 
But, beneath Chris’ fatherly manner, there’s a monster of sorts, even if it’s unleashed accidentally, for only a few seconds and four icepick-thrusts. (Many gifted artists have their monstrous sides.) Beneath the destructive, exploitive, bad-to-the-bone selfishness of Kitty the dumb sexy hooker and Johnny the psychopath, are two overgrown children playing with fire. And Scarlet Street, unlike Sartre’s “No Exit” — a play directed on stage by noir master John Huston — puts them all in their separate Hells.
 
Like Robinson, both Joan Bennett and Dan Duryea could be noir immortals for this film alone — though Joan also has, to her credit, The Woman on the Beach and The Reckless Moment and The Secret Beyond the Door. Duryea, a perfect sometimes spineless villain, has Ministry of Fear and Black Angel and Criss Cross. And all three of them, plus Lang, have the previous year’s The Woman in the Window, which is also a nightmare for three players, about a good man gone wrong, and a woman in a painting, but doesn’t go as far, cut as deep.
 
There is, surprisingly, some controversy about whether Scarlet Street or The Woman in the Window is the better movie, the better Lang picture. But though Woman in the Window is very good and a model thriller, Scarlet Street is great (as is its model La Chienne). For one thing, it’s a noir that, like Double Indemnity, stays dark to the end, and gets even darker when you think about it afterwards. Wanger, and, to a lesser extent Lang and Nichols, battled the censors all the way with Scarlet Street (which passed the Breen Office gauntlet, but was banned in New York and elsewhere), even though strangely enough, the enforced moralism of the Hays Code era films may have helped Lang’s unusually frank movie, a picture whose narrative strategies concentrate on finding ways to say the unsayable, and to help the audience think the unthinkable — and whose main theme after all, is “Crime Does Not Pay.” Nowadays, if the film were ever remade, most directors would probably opt for Renoir’s ending (a sublimely goofy denouement depicting Michel Simon as a happy bum) rather than Lang’s.
 
Scarlet Street is one of Lang’s most personal films, one of his best films — though not his very best. (See below.) And though Scarlet Street does show a matchless director in his top form, it‘s a little deceptive to see this masterpiece purely though Lang‘s eye (the good one). Nowadays many of us tend to view film, or at least film art, as the work primarily of the director. But movies, as any good or great director will probably tell you, is a collaborative art, and most great films are the result of great collaborations.
 
Lang is the most important artist in the collaboration here, and almost certainly the most inspirational to his fellow filmmakers. He was not the only one. Yet you have to applaud him even more maybe, because, as the producer, he, along with Wanger, brought all these people together: Golitzen and Krasner, Robinson, Duryea and Bennett (who was married to one of her producers, and it was said, sleeping with another.) And Dudley Nichols, the screenwriter, who worked for Ford and Hawks, Renoir and McCarey, Kazan and Anthony Mann.  A great one.
 
Fritz Lang believed he never made a better movie in America than Scarlet Street. He didn’t. But though it might be gratifying to say that he never made a better movie, period, than this one, it’s not his best picture. M is. But then, few filmmakers have ever made a better movie than M — which is also another picture that tells us, in even more complex ways, that crime doesn’t pay.  Maybe it doesn’t. Or maybe it’s variable, changeable, merging. A sort of criss-cross.
 

Extras: A fine Commentary by David Kalat; Photo gallery.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Wilmington on DVDs: New Year’s Eve; Joyful Noise; Pillow Talk

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012
New Year’s Eve (Also Blu-ray) (One and a Half Stars)
U.S.: Garry Marshall, 2011 (Warner Home Video)

New Year’s Eve may be the punishment audiences get for making director Garry Marshall and writer Katherine Fugate’s Valentine‘s Day such a big movie hit last year. That schmaltzy, heart-up-your-sleeve, all-star show strung together a lot of clichéd romantic comedy vignettes or plot lines, each with big name mini-casts, against the backdrop of Los Angeles on Valentine’s Day.
Like many critics, I watched the movie, said a few nasty things, and forgot about it. Little did I know, little did we all know, that the damned thing would gross 200 million dollars and give birth to New Year‘s Eve – the latest romcom-arama from Marshall and Fugate, in which eight big star love stories are plastered against the backdrop of New Year’s Eve in New York, New York.
So what happens on this frantic nonstop super-holiday? Oh, lots of stuff…
Hilary Swank, who’s newly in charge of the Time Square New Year’s Eve Ball drop, faces crisis after crisis as the ball get jammed during a dry run (complete with Ryan Seacrest), forcing her to try and fix things with the help of a friendly cop (Chris “Ludacris” Bridges) and the only technician in New York who can handle this job: Hector Elizondo, whom she once fired.
Zac Efron, a bike delivery boy with lots of chutzpah, hooks up with Michelle Pfeiffer, a mousey dreamer who just quit her corporate job as a music company president’s assistant, and she offers him prime party tickets if he’ll  fulfill her top ten wish list in one day. Ut’s no slam dunk. The list includes such whoppers as a Balinese feast, but Zac accomplishes it with astounding speed — unfazed even by the logistics of putting together an on-stage Radio City Music Hall review with Michelle, in what seems like a half an hour or so.
Meanwhile, Zac’s buddy, smirking artist rebel Ashton Kutcher, gets caught in a freight elevator with Lea Michelle, a backup singer for Jon Bon Jovi, who is also present and here cast, in a slight stretch, as a legendary rock singer. (He’s hell on wheels on “I Can’t Turn You Loose.”) Jon Bon, who’s providing entertainment that night (along with Lea), spends much of the day trying to win back the heart of fetching food boss Katherine Heigl, whom he fled last New Years, when he got cold “relationship” feet.
Chic mom Sarah Jessica Parker tries to rescue daughter Abigail Breslin from any possible Sex in the City with glib teen Lothario Jake T. Austin, who smirks almost as much as Ashton Kutcher (never a good sign).  And Josh Duhamel, who got encouraging signals from some unknown woman last New Years’ Eve, wrecks his car on a day when all the mechanics are on holiday, and races to the city with some loveable provincials in a van, to try to find his mysterious dreamgal again.
Exhausted, yet? Well, two couples — Jessica Biel/Seth Meyers, and Sarah Paulson/Til Schweiger, are engaged in a race to have the first baby born in the New Year, thereby winning a $25,000 contest. And on another floor of the same hospital, Robert De Niro lies dying of mortification for having agreed to appear in this movie.
No, I’m kidding. Robert De Niro plays a man dying of cancer (not mortification), tended by nurse Halle Berry, and De Niro’s last wish is to watch the ball drop on New Year’s Eve, from the roof of that very hospital. Naturally, it’s against hospital regulations. (So why doesn’t he just call Zac Efron?)
Each of the eight stories is about as phony and schmaltzy and star-obsessed as the usual big, glossy, big-studio, big-star romantic comedy these days, except there are eight phony schmaltzy stories instead of just one. Also, the movie doesn’t look as good. But Marshall and Fugate, as in Valentine’s Day, can swing back and forth between story-lines, hence keeping boredom at bay — at least theoretically.
By the end, everything in New Year’s Eve will be resolved and tied up in ways that should satisfy anyone who loves phony, schmaltzy movie stories, and several of the tales will have infiltrated each other for some semi-surprise climaxes. You’ll never guess who Josh Duhamel‘s surprise mystery women is. (A hint: It’s not Katherine Heigl.) Or which current or former New York Mayor shows up to help drop the ball. (A hint: It’s not Ed Koch.) Or how long Ashton Kutcher can keep smirking in that elevator, before Lea Michelle breaks into “Auld Lang Syne.“

SPOILER ALERT

I will reveal however that Robert De Niro does get wheeled out to the roof to watch the ball drop, in a highly improbable but amply telegraphed plot twist — but I won’t tell who wheels him up there. (A hint: It’s not Al Pacino.)

END OF ALERT

Garry Marshall, a king of the sitcom, godfathered TV’s “Happy Days” and “The Odd Couple” and “Laverne and Shirley” (sister Penny does a cameo as herself here), before becoming a big-movie rom-com specialist with the likes of Pretty Woman and Frankie and Johnny. (My favorite Marshall movie is still his 1984 The Flamingo Kid.) There’s something likable about his movies even when they’re baloney factories like this one, and he‘s not ageist, like a lot of contemporary rom-commers. But I shudder to think what new holiday or national institution he and writer Fugate plan to waylay and ransack next. Christmas? Labor Day? Halloween? (What about an ensemble slasher movie with eight different maniacs prowling the streets of Burbank?)

The late Robert Altman used to make wonderful all-star ensemble movies like Nashville and Short Cuts and Gosford Park — movies that did exactly what New Year’s Eve and Valentine‘s Day try to but don’t. Though Altman’s pictures didn’t gross 200 million dollars, they told surprising, funny, intelligent stories with fascinating characters, and wove them together with gusto, artistry and ingenuity. These new holiday movies may be pulling in a lot of people (on DVDs as in the theatres), but they’re nothing special. They show us who they think we want to see, and tell us what they think we want to hear, in ways that we’ve seen before. If you took one of Altman’s ensemble shows, even one of the weaker ones, like Health, and ran it backwards and upside down, it might be more entertaining than this.

As it is, New Year’s Eve is another example of America’s rampaging star system obsession, or the tabloid syndrome. Ah well, let’s raise a glass and sing “Auld Lang Syne” for Bob Altman, the master of ensemble movies, the president of overlapping dialogue, the wizard of M*A*S*H, the pasha of Nashville, the Duke of Gosford Park. Here’s to you, Bob. Let me tell you: He wouldn’t have let us get stuck in an elevator with Ashton Kutcher.

JOYFUL NOISE (Also Blu-ray) (Two Stars)
U.S.: Todd Graff, 2012 (Warner Home Video)
Joyful Noise — in which squabbling small town Southern gospel divas Queen Latifah and Dolly Parton take their small town Georgia church choir to the improbable finals of the National Joyful Noise Competition in Los Angeles — is really two movies: one good, one bad.
One of the movies is a set of rousing gospel and ‘60s-‘70s rhythm and blues numbers socked across by the so-called Pacashau Sacred Divinity Choir, under the feuding leadership of co-divas Vi Rose Hill (Latifah) and G. G. Sparrow (Dolly). And that musical half rocks and rolls with such show biz fervor and exaltation, such smoking songs and funky toe-tapping accompaniments, and such a boatload of talent headed by Dolly and Latifah, that the movie gets you to respond (and enjoy yourself) despite yourself.

The other half is a truly idiotic small town soap opera — or dramady or rom-comma or whatever — in which the actors pelt each other, and us, with cornpone clichés and phony show biz baloney, just as lustily and pointlessly as G. G. pelts part-time waitress Vi Rose with hot biscuits in the restaurant foodfight scene, Joyful Noise’s stupidest.
One of these movies (the musical half) is entertaining. The (the story half) other is ridiculous. One is Joyful. The other is Noise.
It was too bad you couldn’t have taken a DVD remote into the theater with you and jumped this movie past the clichés and the tommyrot — though the rest of the audience might started singing your praises. But now you can. In any case, we still never learn exactly why this integrated but combustible choir — from a church so dinky it might have trouble fielding a basketball team — got good enough to make it to Los Angeles, especially since Vi Rose and G. G. keep up a running verbal/insult/busybody battle from the moment Vi Rose gets appointed by Pacashau’s smug preacher man, Rev. Dale (Courtney B. Vance) to the choir leader post G. G. thought was hers by right, since her hubby Bernard (Kris Kristofferson) was, after all, the previous director.
In a way, Kristofferson makes the definitive comment on the movie‘s storyline (if not its music) by grabbing his side during the first song and keeling over dead outside the church. (Don’t worry. We can sense a ghostly duet with Dolly in the offing.) Soon after Bernard’s death, a hell-flock of clichés and inanity begins invading Joyful Noise like Hitchcock‘s birds attacking Bodega Bay. On and on they come, shamelessly, screechily, devilishly – including a stormy romance between two talented young Sacred Divinity songbirds, Vi Rose’s dedicated daughter Olivia (Keke Palmer) and G. G.’s grandson, the aptly named Randy (Jeremy Jordan).

There’s an odd subplot (for a movie about a church choir) in which unromanced singer Carla (Angela Grovey) proves to be the kiss of death after a night of bliss (played for laughs) with her  hapless but weak-hearted Asian choirmate Mr. Hsu (Francis Jue), who loves her not wisely but too well, and not for long. There’s the movie’s would-be juicy dialogue, including Vi Rose’s incessant jokes about G. G.’s plastic surgery and Dolly‘s Hee Haw-style crack about how trying to fool her is “like trying to sneak sunrise past a rooster.”

One of the more amazing things about the Pacashau Sacred Divinity choir though, is their repertoire, which includes Paul McCartney’s “Maybe I’m Amazed,“ The Left Banke‘s “Walk Away Renee,” and a final killer contest medley that starts with Sly and the Family Stone’s “I Want to Take you Higher,” and climaxes with Stevie Wonder‘s “Signed, Sealed, Delivered.” Hey, I love these songs too, but are they gospel? Maybe Stevie Wonder could make it in with a little revision — “Here I am, Lord God! Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I’m Yours!”

But does writer director Todd Graff (who’s guilty of both Camp and Bandslam) know what Sly Stone was talking about, when he told us he wanted to take us higher? And what if somebody tries to sneak into the mix some James Brown (“Get Up, Like a God Machine”), Chuck Berry (“Johnny (Matty, Markie and Lukie) Be Good“) or Rolling Stones (“Let’s Spend Eternity Together”) into the mix? Hey, that might be like trying to sneak sunrise past a rooster.

Pillow Talk (Blu-ray Book and DVD Combo) (Three Stars)
U.S.; Michael Gordon, 1959 (Universal)

This huge, lewd, sparkly 1959 hit –the first in the Rock Hudson-Doris Day movie series — has fun with serial seduction, sex mania, telephone party lines, Manhattan careerism, intimations of gayness, bedroom and bathroom gags on split screens (watch Rock’s toe in the bathtub scene), and other American erotic/cinematic peculiarities. It’s well done — co-written by Stanley Shapiro and by Blake Edwards’ Pink Panther series cohort Maurice Richlin — and well-directed by Michael Gordon, a black list victim who had guided Jose Ferrer to an Oscar in the 1950  Cyrano de Bergerac.

The movie struck it rich, and Rock and Doris did make fine fizzy chemistry together. She was a swinging doll pop songstress and a blonde, bubbly mix of sexy, warm-hearted pixie and plucky career gal. He was a big, hunky guy whose homosexuality can be read under his extreme baritone charades of masculinity.  She played a virgin; he played straight. (Tony Randall, the third member of the series trio, supplies a fussy, wittily neurotic counterpoint to Rock.) And 1959 Audiences went as crazy for Pillow Talk as they did for a much better movie sex farce with a much more obvious gay subtext, the great Some Like It Hot.

Pillow Talk has held up through all these years and all those revelations as a sort of classic, and the best of the Rock and Doris movies. But we can never take it straight any more – assuming we ever could.  The supporting cast, a fine crew, includes salty Thelma Ritter, nervy Nick Adams, ’30s-’40s stalwarts Allen Jenkins and Lee Patrick, a bit of Frances Sternhagen, and a bit more of the great French actor Marcel Dalio (of Grand Illusion and The Rules of the Game). It’s still funny, maybe for different reasons. The Coen Brothers once named Pillow Talk as their favorite movie. Sure, Joel. Sure Ethan. And my favorite movie is Lover Come Back.

Speaking of favorite movies though, one of mine , genuinely, was a film I first saw in my freshman year at the University of Wisconsin: Akira Kurosawa’s great black-and-white period murder drama Rashomon. By chance, my roommate that year was a Japanese graduate student named Shuichi. Shuichi didn’t talk to me much; he thought I was too young and too messy. But I was eager to talk to him about this fantastic movie by his countryman, and indeed, he was familar with both the film and its director, to whom he referred, respectfully. as “Mr. Kurosawa.” Cautious deference though — and not the intense aesthetic excitement that Rashomon had awakened in me – is all Shuichi seemed to feel for Mr. Kurosawa and his masterpiece. A bit puzzled, I asked him which  films he did like. I was even more surprised when Shuichi replied, “movies with Doris Day.”

I was truly dumfounded. Movies with stars like Doris Day (and Rock Hudson) were precisely what I thought I’d neen seeing too much in the little Wisconsin village of Williams Bay where I grew up. Although I read Dwight MacDonald in Esquire religiously, sneaking quick scans at the local drugstore magazine stand, I hadn’t been able to watch more than a handful of foreign films in the Bay area, all dubbed –which is one reason I was so thrilled by Rashomon.

My own favorites then (and now) included some pictures from that foreign language handful Id seen (Jules Dassin’s French Rififi and Ingmar Bergman’s Swedish The Magician), but mostly those more ambitious and stylish English language movies I’d seen in the nearby theaters and on TV by Alfred Hitchcock and Orson Welles and John Ford and David Lean and Billy Wilder and Carol Reed and Stanley Kubrick and Elia Kazan. I loved movies, but I already took them very seriously. My all-time favorite (then and now) was Citizen Kane.

So. “Why do you like Doris Day so much?” I asked my very serious Japanese roommate, genuinely stumped. With a big grin, Shuichi answered, “Oh, she’s so cute!”

Well, what can you say. She is cute. So was Tony Randall. As for Rock Hudson, he played straight man very well.

Extras: Commentary; featurettes; trailer.

Wilmington on Movies: The Five-Year Engagement

Tuesday, May 1st, 2012
THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT (Three Stars)
U.S.: Nicholas Stoller, 2012
The Five-Year Engagement, latest from the Judd Apatow bunch, is a romantic comedy that would probably be annoyed if you called it a rom-com. Directed and co-written by Nicholas Stoller (who made the very entertaining buddy road comedy Get Him to the Greek), it’s a smart film about smart people who get into a dumb situation: a seemingly endlessly protracted engagement that keeps getting extended because, even though they love each other honestly, truly, this engaged couple — psychology grad student Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt) and trendy sous chef Tom Solomon (Jason Segel, who’s also the co-writer ) — can’t solve their geography problem or make their opposing career tracks jell.
Tom works in Birch, one of San Francisco‘s hippest modernist restaurants. Violet wants to go to grad school at Berkeley, but she’s rejected — before getting a positive offer from the University of Michigan. So Tom — such a nice, unthreatening chap that he’s wearing a pink bunny suit when they first meet — plays super-nice guy and agrees to put off their wedding and accompany her to Ann Arbor for a couple of years (they think).

What a prince! (What a bunny!) But…once they get to Ann Arbor, Tom can’t find a decent chef job, and he winds up hand-crafting sandwiches in Zingerman’s deli, for an eccentric,  foot-in-mouth deli guy named Tarquin (Brian Posehn). And Violet finds herself the romantic target of her sly, persistent faculty advisor, academic superstar Prof. Winton Childs (Rhys Ifans).

Meanwhile, back in San Francisco, Tom’s somewhat dopey-seeming best pal Alex Eihauer (played with a grin worthy of the Stiffmeister by Chris Pratt), gets the main chef job at Birch for which Tom was slated, marries Violet’s somewhat kooky sister Suzie (Alison Brie) and settles down to the great career and family life that is now nightmarishly eluding his trapped-in-Michigan best buddy. Nice guy Tom, who just wanted to do the right thing for his ladylove Violet, and maybe rack up some good conduct points for the marriage ahead, seems to have done only the wrong things for himself.

Berkeley, Berkeley, shame on you. That perfect wedding, which seemed so close, so inevitable, now seems increasingly elusive, unreachable, and the The Very Long Engagement (too bad Jean-Pierre Jeunet got that title first) seems to be stretching into infinity. Tom’s and Violet’s grandparents, who want desperately to see their grandchildren tie the knot, start proving distressingly mortal. Tom settles down to a ridiculous life with his bizarre new Midwestern companions Tarquin and another faculty husband, the very peculiar Bill (Chris Parnell).

Violet, by contrast, becomes a success and a Michigan mini-star. She gets into a somewhat friendly fellowship competition with three comical, and multi-cultural, psych grads — Mindy Kaling as tart Kaneetha, Randall Park as brainy Ming and Kevin Hart as uninhibited Doug, who thinks the answer to any psychological problem is probably masturbation — while super-prof  Winton keeps after Violet, slyly, persistently. Will the marriage happen? Will the romance survive? We have five years (or two hours) to find out.

Most of the things that go wrong with most Hollywood romantic comedies, are done right here. The Five-Year Engagement isn’t a glamorous showcase for a bunch of glam-kids trading double-entendres, but an honest (but also funny) investigation into modern relationships and their quirks and pitfalls. The cast is a first-class, heavy-duty comic ensemble, and the genuinely amusing script has lots of good moments for lots of funny people — especially the stars, Segel and Blunt. The writing — a collaboration between Segel and Stoller (who worked together before in Forgetting Sarah Marshall) is hip and perceptive and sometimes hilarious, and it nicely mixes slapstick, witty dialogue and realistic dramady.

The Five-Year Engagement seems to be taking place, at least partly, in a real world — albeit a frustrating and comically exaggerated one — with problems that really matter. The movie, like most Judd Apatow comedies, is knowing about sex, big-hearted. and crude when it feels like it. But, in the Apatow tradition (and I suppose we should also call it the Segel-Stoller tradition), the show is knowing about human relationships and what can gum them up. It’s both sharply comic and warmly humane.

The movie, opening weekend box-office disappointment or not,  touches us because it’s about something real: the dilemma of modern couples trying to juggle careers and marriages (or engagements). We can feel sympathy for Tom and Violet because they’re such an attractive movie couple — though not too attractive. Both of them are also expert comedians; if there’s a laugh somewhere, they’ll get it. Emily Blunt is a prize leading lady, both ravishing and intellectually spry. And Segel is a very, very funny guy who also manages to be almost insanely likable. Most of the supporting cast, especially Ifans as the crafty advisor-on-the-make, and Pratt and Brie as the couple who don’t have a long engagement, are funny as well.

I liked Engagement — but I didn’t love it.  And some things in the script, and pretty important things, just hit me with a clang. I spent many years in Madison, Wisconsin — home of the University of Wisconsin and a college town very like Ann Arbor — and I couldn’t believe for a minute (make that a second), that a guy with chef credentials and a personality like Tom’s could move into a city like that one and get such an immediate cold shoulder from all the big restaurants.

It’s not impossible of course. But Segel and Stoller had to come up with a better reason for his freeze-out — say, some humorously stupid bosses or some kind of tryout that Tom flunks for some comical reason or other, or (I like this better), outright secret sabotage from Professor Childs, who might have a friendship with the local hip restarauteur, and thus be able to undermine Tom behind his back. That last may seem like melodrama, but it makes more sense to me (and feels more real) than the montage of turndowns in the movie, for a chef that would have been welcomed at a place like Ann Arbor with open arms and warm ovens. And that story twist would have made you dislike Childs more, which would have helped both the dramatics and the comedy.

There’s one gag that should have been scrapped: the scene where Tom lets Alex and and Suzie’s little daughter wander off, and she finds a crossbow and shoots Violet in the leg with it. It’s not funny, and I don’t see any way you could make it funny, or even make it unannoying, except in some other kind of movie. (The Three Stooges, maybe.) I also may have missed the reason why Violet and Tom don’t do the obvious thing and get married before they go to Ann Arbor.

Of course, you don’t have a movie if they do. And, of course, a college marriage could have crumbled too. This movie absolutely requires a very long engagement. But scriptwriting — especially writing for a try at a classic (or neo-classic) romantic comedy like this — is a matter of solving problems and answering sticky questions. Segel and Stoller show so much comic invention, invent so many characters and dream up so many neat comic moments, that it’s frustrating to see some of the questions unanswered.

Unanswered questions are what we expect in rom-coms, along with all the phony characters and bad lines and the obsession with glamour above personality, and money above sense. From true romantic comedies about people honestly in love, like The Awful Truth or The Shop Around the Corner or Adam’s Rib or The Apartment or When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall, we expect a mix of gorgeous, hilarious people and sincerity and humanity and shrewd craftsmanship. And laughs. In the best of The Five-Year Engagement (a lousy title, by the way), we get them — honestly, humanly. Just don’t call it a rom-com…

Wilmington on Movies: The Raven

Saturday, April 28th, 2012

THE RAVEN (Two Stars)
U.S.: James McTeigue, 2012

Once upon a midnight dreary, as I pondered weak and weary

Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore –

While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,

As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.

“Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “Tapping at my chamber door –

“Only this and nothing more.”

Ah, distinctly I remember, it was in the bleak December,

And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.

Eagerly I wished the morrow — vainly I had sought to borrow

From my books surcease of sorrow — sorrow for the lost Lenore –

For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore –

Nameless here forevermore.

Edgar Allan Poe: “The Raven”

On a dark day in October, 1849, the greatest poet America ever produced — the sharpest poetic mind and one of the most staggeringly gifted literary stylists we will generate, ever and evermore — was discovered wandering, distraught and probably dying, on the streets of Baltimore. Feverish, delirious, the victim of brain congestion and a host of other possible illnesses including tuberculosis, rabies and the DT’s, as well as all the dissipations and deterioration wrought by his addictions to alcohol (absinthe especially) and possibly to opiates — and the victim also of the literary jealousy and venomous literary politics that kept him poor and notorious and under-rewarded for most of his career.

Four days later, on October 7, this piteous wreck of a man — the flame of his genius guttering and whispering out as he lay, mostly silent (sometimes raving about a mysterious “Reynolds”), or collapsing on the sweaty sheets of a Baltimore hospital bed — died at the age of 40. He was, of course, Edgar Allan Poe.

What could be more horrible? Pits? Pendulums? Premature Burials? Mozart, Rembrandt, and other great artists also died sad deaths in undeserved hardship, but not as horrific as this one. The last few days of Poe’s life — when he found himself increasingly swallowed up by the darkness he had evoked so intensely in his stories and poems, found himself more and more facing the shadowy terminus of death that he had dreamt of and written about over and over — this is something to make you shiver and weep. Horror! Horror indeed.

But wait a minute. This isn’t the kind of horror that puts money in your pockets. A loser roaming the streets and expiring in a hospital? Not in our bottom-line, money-obsessed, failure-hating age. Let’s imagine something more horrible — and certainly more modern, more suitable to contemporary tastes.

A sick ragged, man, maybe in delirium tremens, dying on a park bench: That’s a downer. So we’ll make it all bloodier, wilder, gorier. Suppose that Poe’s last days (as imagined in the new movie The Raven by writers Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare, directed by by James McTeigue and enacted by John Cusack as Poe, along with Luke Evans, Alice Eve and Brendan Gleeson) were not spent with Poe wandering sick and lonely through the chill autumn streets or expiring on a charity hospital bed, but instead with the great, self-destructive poet in a livelier, feistier, more glamorous incarnation: running all around Baltimore in pursuit of a serial killer who kidnaps and kills helpless young ladies and hapless critics and subjects them to Saw-like tortures and executions which copy the tortures and murders in Poe‘s own stories, playing grisly serial killer variations on the plots of “The Masque of the Red Death,” “The Pit and the Pendulum,” “The Mystery of Marie Roget,” “The Premature Burial” and others.

Suppose that this murderous fiend and crazed Poe-fancier, wrested bodily from the bosom of Se7en and supplanted to 1849 Baltimore, also kidnapped the young lady whom Poe adored — wistful Lenore-like blonde Emily Hamilton (Alice Eve), protected daughter of grim-faced, wealthy, intolerant Captain Hamilton (Brendan Gleeson) — buried her in a coffin, threw dirt on it, and fills the murders with elaborate clues to where Emily is hidden?

Now, we’re cooking! Now we’ve found real horror, real chills. Now we’ve replaced sick loser Poe with sick but lively detective/adventurer/romancer Poe, fiercely pursuing the killer though dark woods on horseback, and into bustling theaters with backstage assassins and fearlessly into charnel houses of dread. We can have Edgar Alpha Poe picking fights in taverns unless somebody can remember the lines to ‘The Raven.’ (Nevermore.) We can find him verbally assaulting his irreverent and cheap editor, Henry Maddox (Kevin McNally), while tolerating the adoration of his biggest fan, typesetter Ivan (Sam Hazeldine).

We can have huge ballroom scenes and great chases. We can have Poe’s great literary enemy (and executor) Rufus Griswold (John Warnaby) tortured and murdered in the Pit, by the Pendulum. We can even have Poe suspected of the copycat murders himself, given the once-over by the hunky young Baltimore homicide detective Emmett Fields (Luke Evans, who played Apollo in Clash of the Titans) and then we can have Fields realize the errors of this ways. (After all, how can poor, starving, alcohol-poisoned Poe bury anyone alive or accumulate such expensive murder devices? How can he afford a Pit, much less a Pendulum?) Fields is content to become a sort of Lestrade to Poe, perhaps even a semi-Watson. A Stanley Tucci or Paul Giamatti type might have been better.

But it’s impossible to imagine any kind of Poe, involved in this 19th century mass media fiasco. And even if you are inclined to be charitable (the charity Poe mostly didn’t receive, and which this movie doesn’t deserve) — it’s also impossible to believe that the killer would be able to finance and throw together his outlandishly elaborate Saw-mill of a scheme, which includes that huge pendulum mechanism, a hidden graveyard, and numerous cat-and-mouse games with the puzzled police and the determined Poe and Fields, (Plus the guy must have a day job.) This is just nonsense and not even played with the humor that might have saved it.

SPOILER ALERT (But why do you give a damn?)

So the two sleuths battle the maniacal Poe-fancier and damsel-distresser, following his/her trail (though always late) into masked balls and besieged theaters, through streets shrouded in shadow. (These streets look more like Budapest than Baltimore — because they are.) And finally following it into the grave itself — and into a blathering climax where Poe — who, after all, invented the detective story in” The Purloined Letter” and “The Murders in the Rue Morgue,” and knows the rules — stages a battle of wits with The Least Likely Suspect.

END OF ALERT

What could be more terrifying than that? Finally we ring down the curtain not on some more dying failed schmuck of a Poe but a two fisted Poe who could duke it out with Robert Downey’s Sherlock Holmes. Or even Iron Man. ..and who could write “The Raven” while he was rope-a-doping him.

But you will have discerned that I jest. Truth to tell, I found this film about as scary, or appetizing, as a plate of cold fried eggs with warm pickle slices and a drizzle of stale mustard. The interpolation of Poe into a super-lurid serial killer plot becomes ludicrous beyond words — even Poe‘s words.

It’s not that the movie has been totally badly done. Though you can’t believe a second of it, The Raven looks and occasionally sounds fantastic — thanks to McTeigue‘s hyper-kinetic direction, Roger Ford’s swank production design and Luc Vidal’s pop-percussive-Herrmannesque score. Even the obvious main culprit — the Poe-basher of a script by Livingston and Shakespeare — has its moments of literacy, sort of.

Though John Cusack has the brains and vulnerability to play Poe, he’s somehow a little too emotionally healthy for the part. Cusack is miscast, but he tries hard, and the others, especially Gleeson and Hazeldine, do about as well as anyone could, with lines like these. But you’d be better off knocking off a case of absinthe and then wandering around Baltimore raving — or simply finding a copy of the 1963 Roger Corman-Richard Matheson-Vincent Price-Boris Karloff-Peter Lorre-Jack Nicholson version (or even the 1935 Landers-Karloff -Lugosi one) — than expecting any real entertainment from this one.

As insanity swallows up the screen, and the movie gallops toward its outrageous end, and as Cusack’s Poe sinks more sadly into the pit of over-production and the pendulum of bad screenwriting, I wondered at the curious fate of that real-life dying genius Poe on the park bench or in the streets, or in the hospital bed. Could this movie and all the money it wastes be some curious revenge against all the people who ignored or reviled or neglected Poe in his grievously short and unfairly unrewarded life? What if the poet could have seen that his poem would receive such extravagant illustration centuries hence? (Even in the 19th century, the poem attracted visions by the artists Gustave Dore, John Tenniel and Eduard Manet.)

Who could have predicted that this cliche-ridden RaVen would be greenlighted, and all casks of Amontillado drained to the dregs, while Poe’s genius got another premature bnurial? Who can have wildly surmised such a preposterous destiny? And imagine how Poe, fiercest of critics, would have treated this botch. (I think I hear something…)

Indeed, is modern Hollywood so besotted with celebrity and superstars that they can only conceive of Poe the literary genius on screen, as Poe the two-fisted super-dick and ladykiller? Who is responsible for all this? Who dare they turn Poe into a hack? How dare they change even a line? (See below.) Who indeed….There! There! It is the beating of their hideous hearts!

“Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend,” I shrieked, upstarting,

Get thee back into the tempest and the night’s plutonian shore!

Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul has spoken!

Leave my loneliness unbroken! Quit the bust above my floor!

Take thy beak from out my heart and take thy form from off my door!”

Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”