AGEBOC ’13 – May 24-26

Standard


AGEBOC 2013

Predict the #1 film of the weekend.

The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points.

Bonus questions:

1. Will Hangover 3 earn more or less than 55 million during Fri-Sun?

2. Will Epic earn more or less than 33 million?
Deadline is Thursday, May 23 11:59 am (blog time)
To find out the rules of the game, go to the main thread for AGEBOC 09.

Current rankings

AGEBOCSuperman_zps98d78221Rob – 7.5

Jackrabbit Slim – 6.5
James – 6
Brian – 4
Juan – 3.5
Nick – 3
Filmman – 2
Joe Webb – 1.5
Jeanine – 1

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

Standard

“I’m a Vulcan–I embrace technicalities!” Not only should this line immediately be put on a t-shirt, but it’s indicative of how much fun the new Star Trek is. The second directed by J.J. Abrams, focusing on the TV characters as younger people, Star Trek Into Darkness is even more fun that Iron Man 3.

I’ve never been a big Star Trek fan. I’m neither Trekkie nor Trekker, and I can’t recite chapter and verse from the episodes of the TV show. I think I’ve seen all of the movies, though, from the original cast through the Next Generation cast. None of them have made me so giddy or tapped into my teenage self than this one.

And it is a movie ideally suited for teenage boys, down to the shot of Alice Eve in her bikini underwear. It has lots of action, lots of comedy, a great villain (no spoiling here) and even takes a stand on drone warfare. I had a smile plastered on my face throughout.

The film begins mid-adventure, like the opening of Raiders of the Lost Ark, at the conclusion of an encounter with a stone age population. Kirk (Chris Pine) makes a decision to save Spock (Zachary Quinto) which violates the prime directive, and Kirk gets busted for it. But then a terrorist attack reorganizes everything, and Kirk and Spock, along with Sulu, Uhuru, and Chekov, who ends up running around the engine room like Billy Bibbit, are back on the Enterprise.

But not Scotty. Star Fleet has loaded 72 torpedoes to be used on the terrorist, identified as John Harrison and played with stiff-upperlip Britishness by Benedict Cumberbatch. He’s hiding on the Klingon planet (is it just called Klingon?) The admiral (Peter Weller) is itching to start a war with Klingons, but Kirk disobeys orders and captures Cumberbatch instead. We learn who he really is (does anyone not know? I’ll keep mum just in case) and all sorts of shifting alliances take place. The plot is kind of a mess–I’m never quite sure what the villain wants–but who cares?

As with the first film, this one is stolen by Quinto as Spock. Maybe the purists object, but Quinto’s Spock is one with a sense of humor. He’s even romantically involved with Uhuru, which I’m not sure I like but hey, go for it, you kids. When hearing that the two are having a fight, Kirk wonders aloud, “What’s that like?” The spine of the film is that we do anything for family, and that a crew can be a family, whether it’s the villains or whether it’s the bromance between Kirk and Spock. And just how great is it to see Spock kick ass at the end of the film?

While the action isn’t always superior–sometimes it’s just stuff blowin’ up–I did like a sequence that has Pine and Cumberbatch hurtling through space like bullets. There’s also a fight scene with Klingons, and a little trouble comes to San Francisco (nice to see the trolley cars are still running in the future though). But action aside, what makes this movie so much fun is the dialogue. The banter among Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is pleasure, and yes, McCoy does get to say a “I’m a doctor, not a …” line. The writing and acting is able to make these characters identifiable without being caricatures. They’d be great to be around.

If all that isn’t enough, there’s even a tribble.

My grade for Star Trek Into Darkness: A-.

Hitchcock: The Birds

Standard

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Alfred Hitchcock’s The Birds, which concluded a remarkable four-picture run for Hitch: North By Northwest, Vertigo, and Psycho coming before. Talk amongst yourselves: has there been a better streak? One possibility is Francis Coppola’s Godfather-The Conversation-The Godfather, Part II-Apocalypse Now. Other suggestions welcome.

Anyway, The Birds, loosely based on a story by Daphne DuMaurier, is a change of pace for Hitchcock in a few ways, though it still rests on the suspense he was best known for. In a way, this is a horror story, as people aren’t the problem, it’s nature run amok, as the small coastal town of Bodega Bay is attacked by all species of birds. No particular reason is given (in the real-life inspiration to the story, pesticide was to blame) and the ending is ambiguous. Many people refer to this film as a poem, in that there isn’t the typical structure of a narrative.

The film begins with a lawyer, Rod Taylor, meeting a socialite (Tippi Hedren) in the bird department of a pet store. They’re on opposite sides of a lawsuit, but despite the initial hostility are attracted to each other. So much so that Hedren, a prankster, drives all the way from San Francisco to Bodega Bay to deliver a pair of lovebirds. But there there are ominous signs, such as when a gull hits her on the head, and then sparrows flood into Taylor’s house through the chimney.

The film is a slow-boiler. We go through some typical Hitchcock stuff, such as the monstrous mother (this time played by Jessica Tandy, though she is allowed to soften toward the end) and the icy blonde. Hitchcock wanted Grace Kelly, who was by now a princess, and ended up discovering Hedren, who was not a very good actress and who has pretty bad things to say about him now.

But Hedren’s limited range doesn’t interfere with Hitchcock’s suspense. There are two notable uses to camera–one is the schoolhouse attack, as Hedren sits on a bench and behind her crows slowly gather on monkeybars. The resulting attack on running schoolchildren has some ludicrously bad special effects, compared with today, but the way Hitchcock sets it up has us ignore the effects and realize the terror.

The second is when birds attack Hedren while she’s in a phone booth. In some ways the cutting is like the shower murder in Psycho–the cuts are so fast and precise that the scene comes across as a blur, but again, the terror is intact. I also love the edit as Hedren watches, horrified, as a flaming stream of gasoline travels toward the gas pumps, igniting a fireball.

The final act of the film, when Taylor, Hedren and family batten the hatches as the birds assault their house, is also bravura filmmaking. It just goes to show how the banal, when presented as a threat, can be just as scary as monsters from space.

The ending has no defeat of the birds–how would one conquer the world of birds. There’s a great sequence when an old lady ornithologist (Ethel Griffies) tells everyone how many birds there are. She also says that they don’t attack humans. When she’s proven wrong, all she can do is sit quietly, breathing heavily. Instead the ending is completely up in the air, a stalemate. In some old B-films, there would be a title card that would say The End? This is one of those films. It is one of Hitchcock’s finest; his last really great film.

Opening in New York, May 17, 2013

Standard

I’ll keep this short due to the lateness.

The big multiplex opening this weekend is Star Trek Into Darkness (73) which I saw today and loved. It’s even better than Iron Man 3. I’m not a Star Trek guy, but it’s easily the best of the entire series. My review will be up tomorrow. For now, here’s A. O. Scott: “The half-man, half-Vulcan at the center of those relationships — and also the logical thorn in the emotive side of Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) — is one of the great characters in American popular culture, and Mr. Quinto slyly and respectfully revises our sense of him. His performance is witty and self-aware but also entirely serious, and his Spock is at once the ship’s stoical straight man and the guy with all the best jokes.”

The art house opening is Frances Ha (81), directed by Noah Baumbach, co-written by him and his star, Greta Gerwig, as a 27-year-old woman who’s having trouble growing up. Gerwig, who I suppose will always be known as the queen of mumblecore, is a terrific performer, one who could become the next Kate Winslet. Scott: “With its swift, jaunty rhythms and sharp, off-kilter jokes, “Frances Ha” is frequently delightful. Ms. Gerwig and Mr. Baumbach are nonetheless defiant partisans in the revolt against the tyranny of likability in popular culture.”

Finally is Augustine (77), a film about a French neurologist and his patient. Scott: “Everything depends on the subtlety of the direction and the charisma of the performances. “Augustine” is intellectually satisfying partly because it communicates its ideas at the level of feeling, through the uncanny power of Soko’s face and body. A well-known French pop singer, she is as grave and luminous as a silent-film star.”

AGEBOC ’13 – May 17-19

Standard


AGEBOC 2013

Predict the #1 film of the weekend.

The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points.

Bonus questions:

1. What will be the fourth highest grossing film of the weekend?

2. What will be the fifth highest grossing film of the weekend?

Deadline is Wednesday, May 15 23:59 am (blog time)

To find out the rules of the game, go to the main thread for AGEBOC 09.

Current rankings

AGEBOCSuperman_zps98d78221Rob – 7

Jackrabbit Slim – 6
Brian – 4
Juan – 3
Filmman – 1.5
James – 1.5
Jeanine – 1
Joe Webb – 1
Nick – 0.5

Review: The Great Gatsby

Standard

F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby, published in 1925 to ho-hum reviews, has come over the years to be considered one of the handful of great American novels. Therefore, there’s a certain ring of protection around it that’s been set up by English professors and their ilk to keep it from harm’s way, mostly in film adaptations. There have been six, none of them very good, and the latest, by Baz Luhrmann, continues that streak.

Lurhmann, who is to filmmaking as Gallagher is to comedy, has thrown everything at the screen in his adaptation. He is really one of the worst choices for this material (Michael Bay might be worse–we’d get an explosion then), as the book, only 169 pages of carefully constructed prose, requires someone who is steeped in subtlety, a word Luhrmann doesn’t understand. I can appreciate his attempt–he clearly admires the book, but in his hands it becomes a bombastic and boring spectacle. He may know the words, but he doesn’t know the music.

Speaking of music, I’m one who usually doesn’t care for anachronistic music, and it bristles here. This story is about a particular time–1922, the Jazz Age. There’s not that much jazz in it. We do get Andre 3000, but this is not a story that necessarily works as a cautionary tale about our own time. How about making a movie about these characters in their own time, with her own music? Even when Luhrmann tries to be accurate, he missteps. Rhapsody in Blue, by George Gershwin, heard prominently here, wasn’t composed until two years after the events of the film.

For those who are unfamiliar with the story, it is narrated by Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) a fellow on the brink of 30 who has moved to New York from the Midwest to become a bond salesman. He rents a house on a shore dotted with mansions in the fictional West Egg, New York (a stand-in for Great Neck). He eventually meets his mysterious neighbor, Jay Gatsby (Leonard DiCaprio), a vital man who seems to have the perfect life. When Gatsby realizes that Carraway’s cousin is Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), who lives with her husband in old-money East Egg, just across the bay, he asks Carraway to get them together. It seems that the two were in love five years ago, but were interrupted by World War I.

Daisy’s husband, Tom, a former polo star who is now an angry racist, decides to look into his past, especially his relationship with a “gambler” modeled on Arnold Rothstein. Tom is having an affair with the white trash wife of a garage owner in the Valley of Ash, a destitute patch of ground between the green mansions of Long Island and the bustle of New York City. All things will come to a head, and tragedy ensues.

The novel is about a great many things, primarily about the uncanny ability of Americans to reinvent themselves. Gatsby, who comes from a poor farm in North Dakota, has managed to change himself into millionaire and man about town. The book is also about the struggle between the Midwest, where Fitzgerald came from, and the east of New York. But Luhrmann has boiled it down to a romance between Gatsby and Daisy–”It was all for her,” Carraway says late. While Luhrmann’s script gives lip service to the other themes, he does the book a disservice in the telling.

But what about those who don’t care about the book, and have never read it? I saw a lot of teenage girls in the audience, presumably drawn by DiCaprio. What must they have thought of it? Even if I had been taken to my seat from an alien spacecraft, and had no knowledge of the book, I would thought this to be an unpleasant experience. I’ll steal from another critic who says the movie is “spectacle without soul.” It’s brash, loud, garish (I can only imagine how in-your-face it is in 3D) and often quite boring. The party scenes, which Luhrmann must have imagined first, seem inauthentic and an excuse for Luhrmann’s tendency to show off.

There are some good things about the film. The production design is good, especially the way they have used the oculist billboard, which Fitzgerald wrote into the story after seeing the cover design. I also liked most of the acting. Maguire has a difficult part, but he handles it with aplomb, even though Luhrmann makes a major mistake in framing the story from Carraway’s stay in an asylum–not in the book. Luhrmann seems to think that Carraway was Fitzgerald, and assigns him his alcoholism and writing ability, but this is not true. Carraway was his own character, modeled on no one.

I also like DiCaprio. His introduction, when he smiles just as Carraway describes it, is almost breathtaking, and I never didn’t believe him in the part. I was also admiring of Joel Edgerton as Tom. However, as much as I like Carey Mulligan, I didn’t care for her here. Daisy is a tough character to figure out, but certainly she’s not as vapid as Mulligan plays her. When Mulligan, in pre-release interviews, compared Daisy to a Kardashian, I cringed. Sheesh! Must everything have a contemporary comparison? She’s not like a Kardashian, she’s Daisy Buchanan, who has existed for over eighty years.

I really wanted to like this movie, and was pulling for it early, but by the twenty-minute mark a part of me wanted to leave. Luhrmann makes movies for those with ADHD, and I am not that audience. When he does take a breath, and characters talk, the pacing is deadly, and there’s a lot of watch checking. I did like one thing Luhrmann did–when Gatsby meets Daisy for tea he brings a lot of flowers. A lot of flowers.

My grade for The Great Gatsby: D.

Opening in New York, May 10, 2013

Standard

The big opening this weekend is The Great Gatsby (55), yet another attempt to capture the beauty of one of America’s greatest novels in film. Our Joe Webb loved it. I saw it today and, suffice it to say, I disagree, and will post my review tomorrow. But then he loved Moulin Rouge! and I hated it. A.O. Scott was kinder than most critics: “The best way to enjoy Baz Luhrmann’s big and noisy new version of “The Great Gatsby” — and despite what you may have heard, it is an eminently enjoyable movie — is to put aside whatever literary agenda you are tempted to bring with you. I grant that this is not so easily done. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s slender, charming third novel has accumulated a heavier burden of cultural significance than it can easily bear.”

Also opening wide today is Peeples, (50) not directed by Tyler Perry but “presented” by him. It seems to be a black version of Meet the Parents, with the very likable Craig Robinson starring. Perhaps worth a rental. Andy Webster: “Revelations unfold predictably, but the subplots cohere and the assured pacing offers a stark contrast with the often disjointed tempos of Mr. Perry’s mosaics. And Ms. Chism, who also wrote the screenplay, avoids Mr. Perry’s judgmental, often severe brand of tough love, embracing instead a more benign stance of forgiveness and acceptance. You wonder what films she will create when she’s out from under his shadow.”

Some art house openings of note include Sarah Polley’s The Stories We Tell (92), a documentary about Polley’s mother, who died when Sarah was 11. Manohla Dargis: “Stories We Tell” is an affecting documentary tale about a mother and wife who ached in many of the familiar ways, but didn’t always follow the typical female playbook, which also gives her life the resonance of a mystery that’s too good to spoil here.”

Another prominent doc is Venus and Serena (65), about the championship tennis playing Williams sisters. Scott: “This means that tennis fans will find much to enjoy but very little that they haven’t already seen or heard. The story of how Venus and Serena changed tennis — pushed, coached and nurtured by their father, Richard, and their less talkative but no less determined mother, Oracene — is a remarkable chapter in the history of race and sports in America. The version told here is detailed but also superficial, since Ms. Baird’s and Ms. Major’s intentions and methods are more promotional than journalistic.”

I’ll close with What Richard Did (80), an Irish film that follows the repercussions of an act, I guess committed by Richard, that ripples through the community. Stephen Holden: “This brilliantly acted movie, a loose adaptation of Kevin Power’s book “Bad Day in Blackrock,” directed by Lenny Abrahamson from a screenplay by Malcolm Campbell, confronts the implications for both Richard and for the tightly knit community that reflexively protects one of its own. The film scrutinizes this affluent milieu with a nonjudgmental attitude that makes its impact all the more devastating. Everyone just wishes the situation would go away.”

AGEBOC ’13 – May 10-12

Standard


AGEBOC 2013

Predict the #1 film of the weekend.

The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points.

Bonus questions:

1. Will The Great Gatsby earn more or less than 33 million?

2. Will Tyler Perry Present Peeples earn more or less than 15 million this weekend?

Deadline is Thursday, May 9 23:59 pm (blog time)

To find out the rules of the game, go to the main thread for AGEBOC 09.

Current rankings

AGEBOCSuperman_zps98d78221Rob – 7

Brian – 3
Jeanine – 1
Filmman – 1
Jackrabbit Slim – 1
James – 1
Joe Webb – 0.5
Juan – 0.5
Nick – 0

Review: Iron Man 3

Standard

Sometimes it’s just about fun. Iron Man 3 isn’t a great film, but damn I had fun while watching it. It has some pretty good action, but mostly it has Robert Downey Jr. getting out of scrapes and making quip after quip. I watched with pure pleasure.

The film, directed by Shane Black, is really a James Bond film. We have the wealthy, brilliant, megalomaniacal villain, with an industrial lair for the finale; a secondary and tertiary villain, our hero bound as he listens to the villain’s plans, a femme fatale, lots of gadgets (though in this case Bond is his own Q), and the hero’s coolness under pressure, with a joke for every occasion.

Of course, James Bond never had a iron suit, but in this film Tony Stark, the billionaire behind the mask, is out of the suit much more than he’s in it. In fact, the suit is rendered almost superfluous, as, by my count, six different people in the course of the film wear one of them. At the end of the film there are so many of them, flown by Stark’s computer, Jarvis, that you wonder if a person even needs to be in one. These are the drones of the comic book world.

The film’s two villains: Adridge Kililan (Guy Pearce) who as a gawky and crippled young man gets dissed by Stark and then plots his revenge, in what seems to be an homage to The Incredibles, and the Mandarin, a quasi-Arab terrorist (Ben Kingsley) who is setting off bombs all over the country. Then there’s the guy with red eyes (James Badge Dale) and who’s hands get really hot.

Stark issues a challenge to the Mandarin and gets his house blown into the water. I do hope his homeowner’s insurance covers helicopter attacks. During this sequence Stark’s girlfriend (he’s monogamous now) Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), dons the iron suit for a few moments, a bit of girl power, but then at the end of the film she’s trussed up a prisoner of the villain so nothing is really new.

The overall theme of the film seems to be Stark’s struggle with his own demons. He’s suffering PSTD after the events that occurred in The Avengers. Luckily, in this film, he only has to deal with people who can breathe fire and melt things at the touch. The hot-shot playboy also is forced to team up with a kid in rural Tennessee, and the sentiment is kept a minimum. I do find it interesting that Stark, at the end of the film, doesn’t reward the fatherless boy with companionship, but with things. A lot of comic book heroes, such as Batman, Professor X, The Fantastic Four, etc., are filthy rich, but none so ostentatiously so as Stark. He’s the hero for Wall Street.

But that’s all for the college class on comic book films. For the rabble, including me, are lots of funny lines, some great action scenes (my favorite was a terrific one involving Iron Man saving 13 people that have fallen from Air Force One while name-checking the old game Barrel of Monkeys). There is probably a bit too much here–Don Cheadle is back as Rhodes, this time wearing a red, white and blue iron suit and now called The Iron Patriot, and a bland white guy president that seems quaint in the era of Obama (although they do have Miguel Ferrer as Vice-President). The finale, with all of the iron man suits at once, is too busy, but I was kind of mesmerized by the all the sound and fury. It was like watching fireworks, and I was tempted to go “ooh, ahh.”

This was my favorite of the Iron Man film,s and it’s due mostly to Downey Jr., who just grabs hold of the film and doesn’t let go. When they cast him way back when it was an atypical move, and it’s turned out to be a master stroke. Downey Jr. clearly loves playing this character: when he says, “I am Iron Man” it comes directly from the actor. He’s just so much fun to watch.

My grade for Iron Man 3: B+

Opening in New York, May 3, 2013

Standard

There are 21 films opening in New York today. 21! This means that no one is allowed to say, “There’s nothing to see.”

The biggest opening of course is Iron Man 3 (62), which has already seen by half of the Chinese. From what I hear, they’ve doubled down on Tony Stark’s angst, while keeping a steady rate of explosions. Manohla Dargis: “Originality isn’t the point of a product like “Iron Man 3,” which, despite the needless addition of 3-D and negligible differences in quips, gadgets, villains and the type of stuff blown up, plays out much like the first two movies.” I still want to see it.

For those who live in New York, and disdain the comic book genre, which will never die out as long as these kind of dollars are made, there are a number of other choices. I would see The Iceman (61), which is not about George Gervin but instead a hit man, played by Michael Shannon, perhaps the most interesting and exciting American actor working in films today. With the right choices he could end up another Jack Nicholson, or at least another Christopher Walken.  Stephen Holden: “In “The Iceman” Michael Shannon’s mesmerizing portrayal of Richard Kuklinski, a notorious contract killer, has the paradoxical quality, peculiar to many great screen performances, of being unreadable and transparent.”

Earning a great review in the Times is What Maisie Knew (66), a modern-day adaptation of a Henry James novel about a child who is the subject of a custody battle. A.O. Scott: “What Maisie Knew” lays waste to the comforting dogma that children are naturally resilient, and that our casual, unthinking cruelty to them can be answered by guilty and belated displays of affection. It accomplishes this not by means of melodrama, but by a mixture of understatement and thriller-worthy suspense.”

From director Susanne Bier comes Love Is All You Need (58), with Pierce Brosnan and a woman who looks a lot like Gwyneth Paltrow. I think I’d rather shave my head with a cheese grater than watch this film, but it go a so-so review from Stephen Holden: “Despite the gorgeous sights and rollicking sounds of sunny Italy, a Scandinavian heaviness hangs over the film, with a screenplay by Ms. Bier’s frequent collaborator Anders Thomas Jensen, based on a story they developed. Occasionally it feels as if the buoyancy signaled by “That’s Amore” and the luscious cinematography were applied like whitewash to disguise a dour family drama.” Get that Nick? A Scandinavian heaviness.

Olivier Assayas’ new film, Something in the Air (83) is about the repercussions of the May 1968 protests in France. A.O. Scott: “Something in the Air” feels less like a middle-aged artist’s nostalgia than like an attempt to make a film about the past in the present tense. Its open-ended structure and melancholy atmosphere are reminiscent of post-’68 films like Robert Kramer’s brooding “Milestones” and Alain Tanner’s magnificent “Jonah Who Will Be 25 in the Year 2000,” still one of the truest, saddest films about the aftermath of a revolution that did not quite happen.”

And for those who can’t miss anything with Keanu Reeves is generation Um… (25), which seems to be the dog of the week. Stephen Holden: “What does it add up to? Um … I have no idea and don’t really care. Just because the characters waste their time doesn’t mean you should waste yours watching them circle the drain.”

There are a lot more films opening. 21 in total, remember? But it’s getting late and I think these are the most important and or ridiculous.

 

AGEBOC ’13 – May 3-5

Standard

AGEBOC 2013

And we’re back.

Predict the #1 film of the weekend.

The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points.

Bonus questions:

1. Will Iron Man 3 have a higher or lower per theater average than The Avengers?

2. Will Pain and Gain earn more or less than 10 million this weekend?

Deadline is Thursday, May 2 17:59 pm (blog time)

To find out the rules of the game, go to the main thread for AGEBOC 09.

Current rankings

TBD

Review: Mud

Standard

Mud is Jeff Nichols’ third film, and while not as overpoweringly emotional as his last, Take Shelter, it is a compelling boys’ adventure, with themes of fathers and sons (both biological and not) and the heartbreak of love.

First, the title. Matthew McConaughey plays a man known only as Mud. He is a fugitive living on an island in the Mississippi River. I took two thing from this: one, the phrase “My name is mud” comes from the plight of Dr. Samuel Mudd, who set John Wilkes Booth’s broken leg (also a fugitive) and was imprisoned for it (the debate to his innocence or guilt is still vigorous). So McConaughey may seem to be playing a character who has all the odds set against him. Two, what is more common, other than water, around a river? Mud, of course, and the title character is someone who is not only from the river, he is of the river, almost elemental.

McConaughey is the title character but the eyes of the film belong to Ellis (Tye Sheridan), a 14-year-old boy who is the son of a fisherman in a houseboat right on the river. He and his buddy Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) explore the area like modern-day Huck Finns and Tom Sawyers (Nichols was inspired by the writing of Mark Twain) and go to the island to see a boat stuck in a tree. They then learn that McConaughey is living there, and while Neckbone is cautious, Ellis instantly bonds with the vagabond Mud. The boys then help get him food, and when they learn he is wanted by police they try to help him escape with his girlfriend, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon).

This is a boys’ adventure set in a time that is vanishing. Set and filmed in Arkansas, these boys don’t have cell phones or play video games. Ellis’ father (Ray McKinnon) is a vanishing breed, and one of the subplots is when Ellis’ mother (Sarah Paulson) wants to move into town the houseboat may be destroyed. Across the river lives an old coot (Sam Shepard) who wants to be left alone, but one can sense that his way of life is coming to an end.

But the overall arc of the picture is that love hurts. There are three parallel romances in this picture, and all will come to heartbreak. McKinnon tells Sheridan that you can’t trust women, but McConaughey disagrees, and we can see that the main reason the boy looks up to the fugitive is because they are both hopeless romantics. When asked why he is helping Mud, Ellis says, “Because he loves her.”

This isn’t a perfect movie. There is almost too much plot, and a scene involving Ellis in need seems right of an old Lassie script. But there are nuggets all through out, especially from the mouth of Neckbone, who is sort of comic relief. I love the way Nichols has the boys blurting out the questions we all want to ask, but with age comes discretion. I also found it funny that Mud has only two possessions he values: his gun, and his white shirt, which magically seems to stay white, even while living on an island in the middle of a river. Either he’s got a hidden stash of Oxyclean there, or Nichols is having a little fun.

My grade for Mud: B+

Opening in New York, April 26, 2013

Standard

The most exciting opening in these parts is Jeff Nichols’ Mud (77). Brian is a big Nichols fan, and Take Shelter was my favorite film of 2011.  Another in a series of Matthew McConaughey reclamation projects, A.O. Scott writes: “Mr. Nichols’s screenplay is perhaps a little too heavily plotted, especially toward the end, when everything comes together neatly and noisily, but he more than compensates with graceful rhythm, an unfussy eye for natural beauty and a sure sense of character and place. What might have been an earnest, oversensitive, stereotypically Sundance-y piece of regionalist misery is leavened by suspense and jolts of laughter.”

The big new opening in multiplexes is Michael Bay’s Pain and Gain (45). I hate Bay with the intensity of a thousand suns, though this is stripped down Bay, with no cities being destroyed. Scott writes: “What follows is two hours of sweat, blood and cheerful, nasty vulgarity, punctuated by voice-over ruminations about Jesus, physical fitness and the American dream, along with a few tactical visits to a strip club. It all leaves you pondering whether you have just seen a monumentally stupid movie or a brilliant movie about the nature and consequences of stupidity.”

Also opening wide is The Big Wedding (30), the kind of movie that is an instant turn-off to me, with lots of stars (Robert De Niro is back to slumming for a paycheck) and no wit. Stephen Holden writes: “To say that Justin Zackham’s farce “The Big Wedding” takes the low road doesn’t begin to do justice to the sheer awfulness of this star-stuffed, potty-mouthed fiasco directed by the screenwriter of “The Bucket List.” This is a movie in which the racket kicked up by various couples “boinking,” to use its favorite euphemism, is enough to wake up an entire city.”

One of the films nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Language, Norway’s Kon-Tiki (63) is the story of Thor Heyerdahl’s epic journey. It should be noted that the release here in the U.S. is in English; it was shot in both English and Norwegian. Manohla Dargis: “Directed by Joachim Roenning and Espen Sandberg, with a script by Petter Skavlan, “Kon-Tiki” is a stolidly old-fashioned and manly hair-in-the-wind entertainment of the sort that could have filled out the bottom of a studio double bill. The men are handsome, the sea is pretty and if the sharks look as rubbery as last week’s chicken, at least they add some drama — and buckets of sloshing blood and guts — to what otherwise proves a dull affair.”

There are also a host of small indies. I won’t mention them all, but the best reviewed is An Oversimplication of Her Beauty, (77) a film, directed by and starring Terence Nance, about a relationship between two African-Americans. Nicolas Rapold: “His patchwork scheme (incorporating an original short film titled “How Would U Feel?”) recalls hybrid creations in American avant-garde cinema (imitating watercolor, line drawing, collage), as well as the dreamily puddling creations of 1970s animation, with their spontaneous sense of cosmology.

Second-best reviewed is Graceland (74), a Filipino film that would seem to have nothing to do with Elvis. Jeannette Catsoulis: “Yet even while embracing the breathless beats of the crime thriller, “Graceland” holds tight to its concern for exploited children. Endangered innocence is everywhere — sometimes portrayed in appropriately uncomfortable ways — and the cinematographer Sung Rae Cho deserves enormous credit for emphasizing vulnerability over titillation.”

Rahmin Barani, the director of the excellent Goodbye, Solo, returns with At Any Price (65), starring Dennis Quaid, a film about the murky world of agribusiness. Stephen Holden: “On one level “At Any Price” is a critical exploration of agribusiness and its cutthroat, hypercompetitive ways. On a deeper level it is a searching, somewhat ham-handed allegory of American hubris in the 21st century and a bleak assessment of the country’s wobbly moral compass.”

At Film Forum this weekend is Safety Last, starring the great silent film clown Harold Lloyd. It’s best known for the sequence that has Lloyd climbing the outside of a building, and is the source of one of the most recognizable stills in silent film history.

lloyd-harold-clock

Review: Greedy (1994)

Standard

GreedyIn 1985 Michael J. Fox had done what very few actors had done before him – be highly successful on Television and film at the same time. Not only was he spearheading the highly successful sitcom ‘Family Ties’ but he was the star of the most successful film of that year ‘Back To The Future’, as well as having another hit with ‘Teen Wolf’. An enormously successful film career seemed his for the taking.

But instead his film career gradually lost momentum and by the mid-1990s his career was focussed largely on sitcom television. It was perceived that he lacked a certain gravitas or presence required to last on the big screen. But after viewing him in the 1994 comedy ‘Greedy’, this seems to be an unfair call.

Directed by Jonathan Lynn, ‘Greedy’ is centred on Joe (Kirk Douglas) a self-made millionaire in his twilight years surrounded by an array of slimy family relatives only interested in his inheritance. Panicked by Joe developing a close relationship with his nurse (Olivia D’Abo), the relatives draft in Daniel (Michael J. Fox) the son of an estranged relative and whom Joe took a shine to as a young child. But in multiple ways, things don’t go as planned.

Even though ‘Greedy’ was made less than 20 years ago, it feels almost refreshingly ancient in its film style. In a present era where comedies consider chaos, action, noise and freneticism as the basis for humour, ‘Greedy’ feels a refreshing contrast. It’s leisurely paced, limited background music and lengthy scenes. Clearly Lynn had the confidence in the screenplay and cast to deliver what was required without artificial manipulation and he is largely justified. In what has been an uneven career, this is one of his better efforts.

‘Greedy’ is bolstered by having a deep and talented cast. A particular standout is Phil Hartman as probably the slimiest of the relatives. Wisely he’s only in the film sparingly so he is able to go at full blast throughout, creating a gem of a comic performance. My favourite bit is when he tells the British nanny, “I didn’t like the Beatles and I don’t like you.”

Douglas clearly has a ball with the role of Joe. As portrayed in the film it’s easy to see why he’s disliked by so many but Douglas uses his charisma and charm to make him mischievously likable, even when it’s clear he’s pulling tricks on just about every other character in the movie.

But the key character and performance in the film is Fox as Daniel and he does an impressive job with it. Not only his well-known comic timing on display, but he also gives his character convincing dramatic substance in how he’s struggled through life and how Joe treats him. It enables us to empahsise and care about his plight and give added weight to the film’s more dramatic scenes. It’s a fine performance and pivotal to the film’s success.

The film is quite deft in how it develops Daniel’s character throughout the film. We are introduced to him as having a decent persona, in a good romantic relationship but dispirited by his failure as a professional tenpin bowler. Thrust into the madness of Joe and his scheming relatives, Daniel loses his bearings and becomes gradually corrupted. In a film populated by various types and caricatures, the realistic portrayl of Daniel’s characterisation is essential to maintaining one’s interest over the fairly lengthy running time.

Director Lynn also makes the wise decision to begin the film from the perspective of (relatively speaking) the least loathsome of the relatives only interested in Joe’s money. While they’re not likable, it helps one have some empathy for their plight and how they’ve been stuck for years in grovelling towards Joe at every turn in the forlorn hope for monetary assistance.

‘Greedy’ has a difficult task of balancing several contrasting styles within the one film. It has both realistic characters and comic buffoons that are basically caricatures. It has scenes largely of drama, but also scenes not only of comedy but slapstick and farce. For the most part the film maintains the balance very well, with the possible exception of a climatic scene in a legal office where drama and farce clash to a rather disconcerting effect.

Also, in the middle stages ‘Greedy’ gets somewhat bogged down in the rather convoluted and confusing nature of its plot (especially related to Joe’s scheming). A segment where Joe takes his nurse for a seemingly romantic encounter in Washington could’ve probably been excised from the film entirely.

Largely ignored upon its release and perceived as symbolic of Fox’s failure to cement a long-term film career, ‘Greedy’ can be seen now as an fine and funny film which is a good demonstration of Fox’s talents.

Rating: B