Monthly Archives: July 2012

AGEBOC ’12 – August 3-5

Standard

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 Total Recall earn more or less than $35 million this weekend?

2. Will Diary of a Wimpy Kid – Dog Days earn more or less than $20 million this weekend?

Deadline is Thursday, August 2 23:59 pm (blog time)

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

Current rankings

Juan – 22
filmman – 20.5
Rob – 18.5
James – 18.5
Joe Webb – 18
Jackrabbit Slim – 17.5
Jeanine – 17
Nick – 11
Brian – 5

Review: Beasts of the Southern Wild

Standard

I think it’s safe to say that Beasts of the Southern Wild, directed by Benh Zeitlin, and written by Zeitlin and Lucy Alibar, based on her play, is unlike any movie I’ve seen before. I was worried that if would fall into the trap that so many movies make in examining African-American culture, that it would somehow stoop to presenting protagonists as “magic Negroes.” This film does not do that, although it does represent the place they live as something wholly apart from America.

The setting is an island off the coast of Louisiana that the residents call The Bathtub, and although I’ve never been there, I’ve read enough about coastal Louisiana to know it is remote and has a distinct culture. As the film opens, it is presented as something of a fecund paradise, as described by our protagonist, a six-year-old girl named Hushpuppy. There is plenty to eat and drink and Hushpuppy tells us that they have more holidays than anyone else. She even has her own house, separate from her father’s. Her mother, who was so beautiful that water would boil just be her presence, is dead.

This paradise starts to see wrinkles when her father goes missing. Hushpuppy tells us that if he doesn’t turn up soon, she’ll have to eat her pets. He does return, wearing a hospital gown. Another problem is a coming storm, which can’t help but remind us of Hurricane Katrina. Everyone seems aware that The Bathtub may soon be under water, but a hard core knot of residents stay behind.

Beasts of the Southern Wild succeeds in presenting a view of a place none of us are likely to visit, with a rich authenticity (I had a craving for seafood after seeing so many crabs and crayfish). Secondly, it presents an unusual, but totally believable relationship between Hushpuppy and her father. He teaches her self-reliance, like handfishing for catfish, or breaking a crab open with her bare hands (after which she flexes her guns). Finally, the film is about a way of life that is disappearing, symbolized by the metaphor of ancient animals, called aurochs (giant boars) that come unfrozen from ice and rumble toward The Bathtub. Are they representative of the creep of modern life? I don’t think so–they’re more a representation of the buried past, which is just as threatening to this isolated community.

Perhaps this is why the residents, when they are finally evacuated from The Bathtub and sent to a shelter, want nothing more than to get back. In a sense, they are the beasts of the southern wild, not suited for the comforts of modernity. Hushpuppy thinks the shelter doesn’t look like a prison, which she is led to believe, but instead a “fish tank without water.” Ordinarily, when we hear about holdouts who won’t leave their homes during natural disasters, we think they’re nuts. This story is from their point of view, and we side with them.

The two leads are amateur actors. Dwight Henry is Wink, the father, who plays the father with a startling sense of reality. He knows he’s dying, and wants to prepare Hushpuppy for the future, but is not a saintly figure as might be played by Will Smith. This guy can get mad, and sometimes unreasonably so. And Hushpuppy is played amazingly by Quvenzhané Wallis, a major find by Zeitlin. She occupies the center of this film like the eye of a hurricane, wandering around in her white Wellington boots, an explosion of hair on her head. Her handling of the voiceover narration is terrific, such as when she says that the universe relies on everything being properly connected, and when her Daddy told her that when he got tired of drinking beer and catching catfish, she should put him in the boat, push it adrift, and set it on fire.

That boat is the bed of an old pickup truck, and I won’t soon forget the image of the two of them, out on the water. Though the film is a bit thin, plot-wise (even at only 93 minutes, it feels stretched) but the imagery and performances by Wallis and Henry resonate long after the closing credits.

My grade for Beasts of the Southern Wild: A-.

Opening in Chicago, Weekend of 07/27

Standard

A Cat in Paris (trailer)
Directors: Jean-Loup Felicioli and Alain Gagnol
Personal Interest Factor: 6
French Oscar-nominated animated film about a cat who needs to rescue a little girl from a gangster. Not sure if it’s actually any good.
Metacritic: 63

Ruby Sparks (trailer)
Director: Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris (Little Miss Sunshine)
Personal Interest Factor: 8
Dayton’s and Faris’s long-awaited followup to Little Miss Sunshine seems to be taking on the whole Manic Pixie Dream Girl subgenre in a clever way. Either that, or it’s shamelessly indulging in it, which would be a lot less interesting. I guess we’ll see. The script is by Zoe Kazan herself, who stars in the lead role.
Metacritic: 67

Sacrifice (trailer)
Director: Chen Kaige (The Emperor and the Assassin, Killing Me Softly, Together, The Promise)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Chinese feudal-era story about a guy getting revenge against the warlord who killed his family. Kaige is a reasonably well-known director (his most famous is Farewell, My Concubine, but I don’t believe I’ve seen any of his films.
Metacritic: 58

The Watch (trailer)
Director: Akiva Schaffer (Hot Rod)
Personal Interest Factor: 5
This looks passably amusing, but man, are the reviews ever bad. In a possibly related question, is Vince Vaughn funny anymore? He always kind of irritated me, and now I wonder if that wasn’t a more widespread belief than I thought. You know what the last movie was of his that has at least a 6.0 IMDb rating (that he was a primary star in)? Wedding Crashers, back in 2005. That’s just an awful track record. I mean, a 6.0 isn’t even very good – Adam Sandler’s Just Go with It has a 6.3!
Metacritic: 38

Also this week:
Step Up Revolution (trailer) – 3rd? 4th? 5th? in the series

AGEBOC ’12 – July 27-29

Standard

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 Watch earn more or less than $27 million this weekend?

2. Will Step Up earn more or less than $14 million this weekend?

Deadline is Thursday, July 26 23:59 pm (blog time)

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

Current rankings

Juan – 21.5
filmman – 20
Rob – 18.5
Joe Webb – 17.5
Jeanine – 16
Jackrabbit Slim – 14.5
James – 14
Nick – 10.5
Brian – 4.5

Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Standard

Directed by Christopher Nolan. Screenplay by Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan. Released by Warner Bros. Pictures

NOTE: Very often when I really want to see a movie, I will avoid reading reviews beforehand if I don’t want to read spoilers. It’s a policy that I must say has served me very well. Because reviews often have spoilers. Sometimes they openly discuss plot points from all three films with the assumption that readers have seen the films being discussed. I’m just saying.

In case I wasn’t clear, IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN ALL THREE NOLAN BATMAN FILMS, YOU READ THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK. IF YOU WHINE TO ME ABOUT SPOILERS, I WILL POINT AT YOU AND LAUGH. THIS ALSO APPLIES TO ALL COMMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING THREAD, BECAUSE SPOILER WARNINGS FOR EACH COMMENT ARE TEDIOUS.

Christopher Nolan has become the undisputed king of the event movie, but with this entry into the Batman franchise, he somewhat miraculously produces a film that is an incredible action spectacle on its own terms – in my opinion, the very best of its kind ever made – but a film that beautifully closes off his Batman trilogy, providing extra meaning and texture to the first two entries. It’s like the opposite of The Matrix Revolutions; instead of cheapening all that came before it, it makes its two preceding chapters even better, especially Batman Begins.

The Dark Knight Rises is set 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, which I think is a good choice. The ending of The Dark Knight ended very bleakly for Batman, and it marked a turning point in his career. From the end of Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne’s goal has been to make Gotham City into a place that doesn’t need Batman, and the sacrifice he made at the end of The Dark Knight was to try and make that happen by turning the city against him. He made himself the focal point of the city’s anger and vengeance, and we learn early in the new film that the tactic has largely succeeded. Gotham has defeated the scourge of organized crime, and Batman is still viewed with ambivalence at best in the eyes of citizens and law enforcement alike.

Out of the relative peace in Gotham comes Bane, known internationally as a ruthless mercenary, who has now turned his sights on Gotham City. It soon becomes clear that traditional law enforcement is no match for him, and Bruce Wayne – who has spent the previous eight years closed off in the rebuilt Wayne Manor, nursing his wounds and neglecting his social obligations – is brought out of retirement to once again don the cape and cowl.

I should probably say upfront that Bane is in some ways an inferior character to Heath Ledger’s Joker. Ledger worked Joker on multiple levels, making him into performance art not just for the movie’s audience, but for the other characters in the movie. His powers seemed supernatural at times, always two steps ahead of his adversaries. He was purposeless and manic and hyperactive, doing horrible things just for the fun of doing them, for the benefit of himself and no one else. He was a pure manifestation of fear and anarchy and broke new ground in movie villainy.

Bane, however, is in some ways a better match for Batman. Like Batman, he’s been trained by the League of Shadows, and he understands Batman’s methods and mindset much better than the Joker ever could have. The Joker existed only to be pursued by Batman, but The Dark Knight Rises turns those tables, and sends Bane in pursuit of Batman. Bane is just as skilled and driven as his rival, and comes across as a kind of doppelganger, what Batman might have become had he allowed himself to be consumed by hate and anger and cede his humanity to the League of Shadows.

To this end, Tom Hardy plays the character not as an unaffected psychopath, but with his humanity subsumed under layers of pain and fury. It’s a magnificent performance in its own right, but very subtly brilliant with so much of the character communicated by Hardy through his eyes and body language. It’s to the Hardy’s and the film’s vast credit that, when we learn his backstory, it’s actually very affecting.

One of the key aspects of the Nolan Batman films has been their willingness to ask very hard questions about the Batman mythology. While The Dark Knight asked questions about Batman’s role as a vigilante, though, the new film turns these questions more towards the introspection of the first film. What personal toll does Batman’s actions take on Bruce Wayne? For that matter, is there a difference between Bruce Wayne and Batman? Can one exist without the other? Batman Begins was about Bruce becoming aware of these questions, and The Dark Knight was about his pursuit of the Joker giving him a reason to avoid them (until it was too late), but The Dark Knight Rises is about him facing them head-on. It’s a wrenching portrayal of an iconic character, and Bale more than ever seems like the perfect choice for the role, brooding and weary, physically and emotionally battered.

Bane and Batman, however, are just two characters of an expansive ensemble, and a few new characters also figure prominently in the story. Anne Hathaway takes on the role of Selina Kyle (who of course is Catwoman in Batman lore, although she’s never referred to as Catwoman in this film as far as I know), a jewel thief with ambiguous, shifting loyalties. Joseph-Gordon Levitt plays Detective Blake, loyal to Commissioner Gordon and with his own insights into Batman’s psychology. And Marion Cotillard joins the cast as Miranda, helping Wayne defend his company from hostile takeover by Bane’s minions.

All three have very nicely layered storylines, and are fine supporting roles in the true sense of the term; they have their own contributions to make to the Batman character, playing off different aspects of his character. I’d also single out Gary Oldman, reprising his role as Commissioner Gordon, who has been the trilogy’s most indispensable supporting character. He gets one of the most moving moments when he finally learns Batman’s identity, a scene calling back to Batman Begins when Rachel has a similar moment.

Meanwhile, in terms of scope, Nolan manages to up the ante considerably from The Dark Knight, a film that already seemed maxed out in intensity. It’s a good thing this is the final chapter in the trilogy, because it’s hard to imagine how the stakes could possibly be higher next time around. Nolan’s direction this time, though, is considerably more elegant than in the previous entry, and as a result, the second half of the movie is quite possibly the greatest series of action sequences that I’ve ever seen. It’s amazing how he holds the tension over such a sustained length of time, even topping the extended, multi-layered dream sequence that takes up the second half of Inception. This is, to this point, the pinnacle of big-budget Hollywood filmmaking in the Franchise Era, and it makes The Avengers (not to mention even lesser movies like The Amazing Spider-Man) look like crude children’s drawings.

And so, I find it actually bittersweet to some degree that the trilogy has ended, because I’m a little sad that there won’t be more to look forward to. The Franchise Era has not been a good one for quality films, but Nolan’s trilogy has separated itself from the pack by several lengths. Nonetheless, this is a powerful ending to the story, and as improbable as it might have seemed, I think it’s the best in the series, and a remarkable achievement.

Opening in Chicago, 07/20

Standard

Very short list this week:

The Dark Knight Rises (trailer)
Director: Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception)
Personal Interest Factor: 10
Jeanine and I have been watching all of Nolan’s post-Following films over the last month, and just have Inception to go. My tentative ranking: 1) The Prestige, 2) Inception, 3) Batman Begins, 4) The Dark Knight, 5) Memento, 6) Insomnia.
Metacritic: 80

Farewell, My Queen (trailer)
Director: Benoît Jacquot (Tosca, À tout de suite, The Untouchable, Villa Amalia)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
French film about Marie Antoinette and her apparently lesbian leanings involving a servant. Diane Kruger plays Antoinette, which is … untraditional casting. Antoinette was 18 when she died, while Kruger is in her mid-30s, and I don’t think it’s any particular insult to her to say that she doesn’t look like a teenager. Maybe the movie’s up to something else with this, I don’t know. Trailer looks stylish, though. Anyway, I remember À tout de suite being released, and I have no idea why I didn’t see it.
Metacritic: 67

Trishna (trailer)
Director: Michael Winterbottom (A Mighty Heart, Genova, The Killer Inside Me, The Trip)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
The latest from the prolific but wildly inconsistent Winterbottom, who in the last few years has seemed to make comedies that I really like and dramas that I don’t so much. This is an adaptation of Tess of the d’Urbervilles, which is a novel that, like all good red-blooded Americans, I was assigned to read in school but did not actually read.
Metacritic: 60

AGEBOC ’12 – July 20-22

Standard

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 Dark Knight Rises earn more or less than $25 million on its midnight opening alone? (for reference, The Avengers earned $18.7 million and The Dark Knight earned $18.5 million

2. Will The Dark Knight Rises earn more or less than The Avengers its average earnings per theater (The Avengers earned $47,698 on average per screen, on 4,349 screens, for a $207,438,708 weekend gross. The Dark Knight earned $36,283 on 4,366 screens for $158,411,483 gross)?

Deadline is Thursday, July 19 23:59 pm (blog time)

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

Current rankings

filmman – 20
Rob – 18
Juan – 17
Joe Webb – 16.5
Jackrabbit Slim – 13.5
Jeanine – 15
James – 11.5
Nick – 10
Brian – 4.5

Opening in Chicago, 07/13

Standard

A Burning Hot Summer (trailer)
Director: Philippe Garrel (Les baisers de secours, J’entends plus la guitare, Regular Lovers)
Personal Interest Factor: 4
Not really inclined to seek this out; I saw a reissue of J’entends plus la guitare a couple years back, and it was just about the dullest movie I ever saw in my life. From what I understand, Garrel is sort of a cult figure in France, maybe like a French version of Henry Jaglom or perhaps Alan Rudolph or someone like that. But man, was that movie ever dull.
Metacritic: 62

Neil Young Journeys (trailer)
Director: Jonathan Demme (Stop Making Sense, Storefront Hitchcock, Neil Young: Heart of Gold, Neil Young Trunk Show)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
I really enjoyed Neil Young: Heart of Gold several years back, although I missed the Trunk Show film. Anyway, this is another Young concert film, and it’s really hard to believe that it’s not worth the time.
Metacritic: 74

Take This Waltz (trailer)
Director: Sarah Polley (Away from Her)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Polley’s first film, Away from Her was very good, so I’m inclined to give this one a shot even if nothing about it seems all that noteworthy. Starring Michelle Williams and Seth Rogen in some kind of complicated romantic tale.
Metacritic: 69

Also this week:
Elena (trailer) – Russian film about devious family machinations
Ice Age: Continental Drift (trailer) – latest in the series
The Obama Effect (trailer) – Charles S. Dutton-directed film about a man’s response to Obama’s election

Review: To Rome With Love

Standard

Woody Allen continues his cinematic tour of the great cities of Europe with To Rome With Love. While not as wonderful as Midnight in Paris, it’s also not as embarrassing as some of his post-2000 output. It’s amiable and charming and made me laugh on more than a few occasions. Those who are not predisposed to him, though, will likely be unimpressed.

Those who saw the recent American Masters documentary on Allen will remember his idea collection. He writes them down on scraps of paper, and when it’s time to do a new film, he sorts through them, looking for a winner. With To Rome With Love, it’s clear that he found four ideas that were not hefty enough for a full-length feature, and banded them together with the common thread being they take place in Rome. But unlike Midnight in Paris, he doesn’t really take the opportunity to saturate the script with Italian flavor. This could have taken place in any city.

The four stories are: an ordinary man (Roberto Benigni) is suddenly and inexplicably followed by paparazzi and asked banal questions about the activies of his day. A honeymooning couple (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi) are to meet his severe family. But she gets lost, and ends up meeting a famous Italian movie star. He ends up substituting a high-class call girl (Penelope Cruz) for his wife.

A world-weary architect (Alec Baldwin) ends up being an invisible mentor to a young architecture student (Jesse Eisenberg), who falls in love with his girlfriend’s bewitching best friend (Ellen Page), and finally, Woody Allen plays a retired opera director flying to Rome to meet his daughter’s fiance, and discovering that his father (Fabio Armiliato) has a fantastic singing voice–but only in the shower.

As one might expect, some stories are better than others. The most sharply drawn, perhaps because it is the simplest, is the Benigni one, since it nicely parodies the culture of celebrity worship, particularly celebrities who have no discernible talent. Benigni, who would have been a terrific comic in the silent era, plays the bewilderment of the character wonderfully, but when his celebrity is passed on to someone else, he realizes he misses the adulation. In a strange moral of the story (especially coming from the shy Allen), Benigni is told that between being a celebrity or being unknown, being a celebrity is better.

The weakest segment is the one featuring Cruz, which is half-baked and ends up in a bizarre, completely ridiculous finish involving a hotel burglar. There are few laughs here, especially when the jokes are as old as when Cruz, after hearing someone remark on a painted ceiling, “I can’t imagine what it’s like to work on your back” saying, “I can.”

In the middle is the sequence with Baldwin and Eisenberg. This is quintessential Allen, with names like Yeats, Camus and Rilke dropped in casual conversation. Page plays a creature that reappears in Allen’s work from time to time–the intellectual femme fatale (see Winona Ryder in Celebrity for another example), a woman (a “self-absorbed pseudo-intellectual”) that puts a spell on the unsuspecting, vaguely Semitic hero, making him forget about his solid if relatively unexciting girlfriend (here played by Greta Gerwig). The dialogue is that kind of NPR-ready cocktail party conversation that no one really speaks in real life, but I did laugh a few times, especially at the expression on Eisenberg’s face while Page describes a heated sapphic encounter. What mystified me about the segment was Baldwin’s presence. He’s real when Eisenberg first meets him, but then is some sort of Jiminy Cricket figure, visible only to Eisenberg, except for the few times that Page speaks to him. This was done much better when Bogart served as Allen’s conscience in Play It Again, Sam.

Allen’s segment is the funniest, if only for the presence of the man himself, his first acting job in six years (Scoop was his last starring role). Despite being in his mid-70s, the man still has a way with a line. We first see him white-knuckled on the flight in, and no one can wrap their mouth around the word “turbulence” like he can.

This time he has a more age-appropriate wife (Judy Davis), a psychiatrist who correctly deduces that he is equating retirement with death (an interesting tidbit for those who wish to see Allen in his own work). His work as an opera director was “ahead of his time” (such as mounting a production of Rigoletto with a cast all dressed like white mice). When he hears his future in-law’s voice, he has visions of making him a star, but the man can’t sing except in the shower. Allen gets the bright idea of staging a production of I Pagliaci with Armiliato (a famed Italian tenor) in the shower the entire time. “He’ll be the biggest opera star in the world,” Allen says, to which Davis replies, “At least he’ll be the cleanest.”

The segment plays like one of Allen’s casuals that are published in the New Yorker. Actually seeing the man sing in the shower on stage is not as funny as imagining it, but it’s still amusing. Upon hearing the review in the paper, which says that Allen should be taken out and beheaded, his daughter (Allison Pill) says he’s had worse.

To Rome With Love is acceptable Allen fare, but one wishes he had done more with the setting, and perhaps slowed down to flesh out the script. There are kernels of good ideas here, but some of them don’t pop. None of the four stories intersect, which could be an artistic choice but I chalk it up to speed and laziness on Allen’s part. But it has touches of Allen’s sense of humor (“I was never a communist. I could never share a bathroom”) and has plenty of gorgeous Italian women.

My grade for To Rome With Love: B-.

AGEBOC ’12 – July 13-15

Standard

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. Which will earn more per screen this weekend: Easy Money or Red Lights? (links to trailers in titles)

2. Which will earn more per screen this weekend: Trishna or Union Square? (links to trailers in titles)

Deadline is Thursday, July 14 23:59 pm (blog time)

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

Current rankings

filmman – 20
Juan – 17
Joe Webb – 15.5
Jackrabbit Slim – 13.5
Rob – 13
Jeanine – 12.5
James – 11.5
Nick – 9
Brian – 4

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

Standard

Just in case we missed it, the latest film featuring the web-slinger of comic book fame, The Amazing Spider-Man, ends with an English teacher telling her students that there is really only plot in literature: “Who am I?” Identity and personal responsibility have always been the burdens of superheroes, particularly those of Spider-Man, who is perpetually tormented by personal demons. In this film, directed by Mark Webb, we revisit the source of those demons, which makes an otherwise enjoyable film seem like deja vu.

Spider-Man, like Batman, Superman, and other great heroes, deserves to be resurrected every generation or so. But it was only ten years ago that the first Spider-Man film was released, with an origin story featuring a young, bookish boy being bit by an amped-up spider, finding he has superpowers, and then allowing a criminal to kill his Uncle Ben, thus dedicating himself to stopping crime. To have to go through this again so soon is completely unnecessary. Do we really need to see an actor as good as Martin Sheen go through the motions of teaching his nephew, Peter Parker, about responsibility, and then have to get offed by a street punk?

I’m fine with a reboot with new actors. Tobey Maguire is now 37, and the last film that teamed him, director Sam Raimi and Kirsten Dunst, lacked any vigor or sense of specialness. Andrew Garfield, the new Spider-Man (who is 29, but looks ten years younger) makes a terrific Peter Parker, and Emma Stone is equally engaging as his love interest, Gwen Stacy. These two make this film worth seeing, but I just wish the filmmakers had assumed we know the drill and skipped ahead to the meat of the story.

In this go-round, we are introduced to Peter’s parents. His dad (Campbell Scott), is a biologist who was working on something secret enough that after a break-in, he and his wife take off, leaving Peter with Sheen and his Aunt May (Sally Field, also solid). Later, the parents die in a plane crash, and Peter learns to think of his aunt and uncle as parents. But when a basement flood leads him to find some documents of his father’s, he gets curious and tracks down another scientist, Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who is trying to work out cross-species genetics, so that a human might use traits from other species. Ifans is especially interested in this, since he has a missing arm, and would like to be able to regrow it, as a lizard might.

As with all brilliant scientific ideas, pressure from the corporate office leads to shortcuts, and Ifans, after trying out the serum, turns himself into a big lizard-man. He terrorizes the city, and the newly minted web-slinging vigilante must try to stop him, while simultaneously wooing the girl of his dreams, who happens to be super-smart, interning at Connors’ lab.

The good news is that if you had no recollection of the earlier films, you will probably like this more. A film should be judged on its own merits, but unless you are very young or were formerly Amish, it’s hard to not acknowledge the Raimi films, and in that respect this film is lacking. The scenes in which Parker experiments with his new powers were better in the first film (in that film, Spider-Man produced webs biologically, but in this film he buys the thread, hopefully wholesale). Also, this film has no mention of The Daily Bugle or J. Jonah Jameson, who was always good for a chuckle. Instead, Spider-Man’s foil here is Denis Leary as police captain Stacy (conveniently, Gwen’s father). Leary puts in a fine, droll performance, but it lacks the zip of ol’ JJJ.

As a villain, Ifans gives the Lizard a humanity that is similar to Alfred Molina’s terrific performance as Dr. Octopus in Spider-Man 2, but the writing lets him down, with banal unscientific statements like, “Great things are on their way!” Gee, doc, speak English, will you?

As with the Spider-Man films before, this film does provide thrilling scenes of our hero zipping around the city, defying gravity. A scene in which Parker, unaware of his own strength, dispatches some evildoers in a subway car is well done, as a trio of battles with the Lizard. But by the end there is a sense of fatigue, as the reptilian villain climbs a tall building, like King Kong.

There are also some brain-dead problems. The security at Oscorp, the laboratory where Ifans works, is appallingly lax (why isn’t a door marked “Restricted Access” locked?) and I’m baffled as to how a one-armed man gets an entire lab into a sewer tunnel, by himself. I’m also puzzled as to how it works when the serum wears off. Ifans grows back his arm as a lizard, but when it wears off he goes back to being an amputee. Wear did the cells go? I should add that it seems a shame that Dylan Baker, who played Connors in all three Raimi films, didn’t get the call for this one.

I had an okay time at The Amazing Spider-Man, even though it was mostly trite and covered familiar ground, and was also far too long. Garfield and Stone have real chemistry (if the gossips are to be believed, this extended off camera) and the film has enough wonder that triggers the nostalgia of my comic book-reading days. A sequel (a post-credit sequence sets one up) will likely be better, given that the origin story can be dispensed with and we cut to the chase.

My grade for The Amazing Spider-Man: B-.

Opening in Chicago, Weekend of 07/06

Standard

The Amazing Spider-Man (trailer)
Director: Marc Webb ((500) Days of Summer)
Personal Interest Factor: 6
This seems like perhaps the most desperate studio move ever, and yet all indications are that they’ve managed to make a not-terrible film out of it anyway. Who woulda thunk.
Metacritic: 66

Beasts of the Southern Wild (trailer)
Director: Benh Zeitlin
Personal Interest Factor: 8
Big Sundance hit, and one of the most intriguing trailers in awhile. Definitely looking forward to it.
Metacritic: 83

The Do-Deca-Pentathlon (trailer)
Directors: Jay Duplass & Mark Duplass (The Puffy Chair, Baghead, Cyrus, Jeff, Who Lives at Home)
Personal Interest Factor: 4
The Duplass brothers sneak in another movie, about two brothers and their made-up contest for superiority. After watching their last two releases, I’m just not sure I can do this one.
Metacritic: 60

Savages (trailer)
Director: Oliver Stone (Alexander, World Trade Center, W., Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps)
Personal Interest Factor: 7
As I’ve said recently, I used to be a huge fan of Oliver Stone, although that’s faded somewhat over the years. I still think that he’s an extremely capable, sometimes even thrilling director; the first half of the Wall Street sequel was pretty great. Hell, even Alexander had some interesting ideas hidden behind one of the worst casting decisions ever. But something about this one looks wrong to me. Maybe Universal doesn’t know how to market it, or something. But the idea of Stone doing a crass drug-gang thrill-ride seems, oh, 30 years outdated, especially now that the violence has gotten so extreme and widespread.
Metacritic: 62

Turn Me On, Dammit! (trailer)
Director: Jannicke Systad Jacobsen
Personal Interest Factor: 6
Norwegian film about a horny 15-year-old girl. Decent reviews, but it’s tough to get a read on it from the trailer, which unhelpfully cuts out any actual dialogue in favor of a bunch of random edits.
Metacritic: 70

Also this week:
Follow Me: The Yoni Netanyahu Story (trailer) – doc about the aftermath of an Israeli hostage rescue in 1976
Hipsters – Russian film set during the 1950s underground nightclub scene
Katy Perry: Part of Me (trailer) – concert doc

Review – Woody Allen: A Documentary (2011)

Standard

Even those who aren’t major fans can’t deny that Woody Allen is a person of enormous significance within cinema – indeed he’s perhaps the most noteworthy individual within American cinema in the last 40 years.  For a period in the 1980s it seemed obligatory that every new Allen film would be widely rated as amongst the best films of the year. While the Academy Awards aren’t always a reliable barometer of class, that he has acquired an astonishing  15 Oscar nominations for screenplays he’s written or co-written (for 3 wins) is a true testament to his quality.

Therefore, a three-hour documentary examining Allen’s life and career is essential viewing for any fan of cinema, let alone fans of Allen. Especially so when Allen is prepared to be substantially interviewed in Robert B. Weide’s documentary, simply titled ‘Woody Allen: A Documentary’, released on TV late last year.

This documentary is effectively in two segments. The first segments covers Allen’s life chronologically from childhood to 1980’s ‘Stardust Memories’, which Weide obviously perceived as a crucial decisive period in Allen’s career. The second segment is a more pottered account of Allen’s his post-1980 work and his overall impact on cinema.

Technically, this documentary is impressively done. The clips chosen to show Allen’s career and films are judiciously and intelligently inserted and Weide is prepared to take some risks unusual in a documentary like when a series of talking heads are shown saying the same phrase in rapid succession to underline a point. Even at three hours there’s barely a dull and stagnant moment.

Of course the main reason the documentary is entertaining is the scope and substance of Allen’s career. The segment I found the most interesting was Allen’s stand-up career and rise to fame and acclaim in the 1960s as he succeeded despite himself. Deeply reluctant to pursue stand-up when he was already a successful comic writer, he struggles for a while as his distinctly uncomfortable persona mitigates against his talent. But he persists (and is pushed by perceptive managers) and becomes one of the defining stand-up acts of his era. From the clips that are shown he always looks awkward during his routine and paradoxically, perhaps that was the secret of his success. Perhaps audiences of the 1960s were tired of the traditionally slick and manufactured comics and found Allen’s style genuine and appealing, especially as it fitted in with his self-depreciating style of comedy. And of course, it was also because he was an exceptionally gifted comic.

Even more interesting from this era is how his management pushed him into the public eye in the 1960s so that he wasn’t just a noted stand-up comic, but a mainstream American celebrity. We see footage of him singing in a broadway style musical number (and his singing is indeed dire) and even participating in a boxing match with a kangaroo! While some of this must’ve been galling for him to participate in, it helped give him the celebrity credit that film producers began to see him as a viable talent. And the rest is history.

The section covering his film career is also constantly interesting. While most of it was familiar to me, there were some new revelations, like how the scene in ‘Annie Hall’ where Allen and Diane Keaton’s characters are both shown talking in therapy at the same time in what appeared to be a split screen segment, were both filmed at the same time.

Allen himself is interviewed extensively throughout the documentary, with significant excerpts from earlier interviews. Curiously enough considering he’s the whole basis of the documentary, when Allen is interviewed it’s probably the least interesting part of the doco. This is because Allen’s patented self-deprecating, self-loathsome persona is rather tiresome to hear in this format, especially when his default reaction to any of his work is to belittle it. It almost feels like an easy evasion of a more penetrating self-analysis of his own work.

More interesting from Allen is when we see his process of working which is a mixture of old-fashioned and eccentric. He uses no electronic technology, and still relies on hand-written notes and old-fashioned typewriters. His method of adding in material on his typewritten notes is certainly idiosyncratic and amusing. When we see his hand-written ideas they are splashed on the page in such a random and eccentric fashion that it would be difficult for anyone but himself to transcribe them to legible form. This form of ideas feels more in the spirit of his early anarchic comedies as opposed to the usually tidy films he’s made in recent decades.

Weide has organised an array of talking heads for the doc ranging from actors who’ve worked with Allen such as Mira Sorvino, ex-wife and actress Louise Lasser and film critic Leonard Maltin. They are generally interesting and well chosen, although the predictable absence of Mia Farrow makes itself felt. Probably the most interesting comment came from film writer F. X. Feeney who says that ‘Hannah And Her Sisters’ was the film Allen’s fans were expecting after ‘Manhattan’, not ‘Stardust Memories’ which seemed to disillusion them, especially with what they took to be Allen’s criticism of his fanbase.

If there’s a weakness in this documentary (perhaps inevitable due to Allen’s participation), is that the tone towards Allen is so reverential, including from all of the talking heads,  that it borders on the gushing. Barely a mildly critical word is mentioned of Allen’s work or Allen himself during the documentary. His downturn in in quality and popularity in the late 1990s and early 2000s is briefly alluded to, but seemingly only as a precursor to mention his triumphant return to form with 2005’s ‘Match Point’.

Also referenced is Allen’s ugly custody battle with Mia Farrow in the 1990s after she found out about his romantic relationship with her adopted daughter Soon-Yi Previn. But again this is treated rather superficially with the focus being on how excessive the media coverage was of it (hardly an earth-shattering insight) and how Allen managed to carry on so strongly through it. Considering Farrow’s absence, this section feels rather pointless and probably could’ve been excised from the documentary altogether.

Despite some weaknesses and a rather self-serving aspect to it, ‘Woody Allen: A Documentary’ is a fine, entertaining work. For those who know nothing about Allen, it’s an excellent starting point to learn about him and his significance. Of course those who are devoted fans of Allen won’t need a second invitation to watch it.

Rating: B

Film Noir: This Gun for Hire

Standard

This Gun for Hire, released in 1942, is not a typical example of film noir. For instance, it has two musical numbers. The script is weak, with some corny dialogue and a plot that relies on two incredible coincidences. But the film, directed by Frank Tuttle, remains notable for the indelible performance by Alan Ladd, then an unknown, as the cold-blooded killer who discovers the good inside himself.

Ladd, who was fourth billed, is really the star of the show. He plays Raven, who, at the start of the film, guns down a scientist who was blackmailing someone. The scientist was supposed to be alone, but his secretary was at the apartment, so Raven shoots her, too. Notably, though, he does not hurt a young crippled girl, even though she sees his face. Raven also has a soft spot for pussycats, and slaps around the hotel maid who chases a stray away. Later, he will expound on the reason he likes them–they don’t answer to anyone, and go their own way.

Raven then meets with his client, the fussy and fat Laird Cregar. Cregar is an executive with a chemical company who is selling secrets to the Japanese. He sets up Raven by giving him marked money from a phony robbery. Raven is pursued by the police, and vows revenge on Cregar and his boss, who is the John D. Rockefeller-like owner of the company, played by Tully Marshall.

Meanwhile, a singing magician, Veronica Lake, gets a job with Cregar, who moonlights as a nightclub owner. She is approached by a senator, who wants her to go undercover and gather information on Cregar. Why a complete amateur is chosen for such a dangerous job is unclear. Also, Lake’s boyfriend is police detective Robert Preston, who just happens to be investigating the robbery.

If that weren’t enough of a coincidence, Ladd and Lake end up sitting next to each other on the train from San Francisco to L.A. Cregar spots them, and thinks they’re in cahoots.

The plot may be creaky, but there’s nothing routine about Ladd’s performance. He would seem to be heartless, except for cats and small children, but a scene in which he is holding Lake hostage in abandoned building on a railroad lot kind of sums up the era’s attitudes about criminals–they are the results of their upbringing. Raven was beaten consistently throughout his life by a mean aunt (his father was hanged, he says), and when she hit him in the arm with a red-hot flatiron, he stabbed her in the throat, beginning his odyssey through juvenile homes, where he was beaten even more.

The relationship between Ladd and Lake, though a little unbelievable (it’s hard to see why she trusts him) is nonetheless effective, and the end of the film, when he has a chance to shoot Preston but doesn’t, knowing he’s Lake’s boyfriend, works well. The film was based on a novel by Graham Greene, which I haven’t read, but I have no doubt the script is far more toothless than the novel. Still, because of Ladd’s performance, it’s well worth seeing.

Review: Safety Not Guaranteed

Standard

Safety Not Guaranteed is a movie that is almost begging you to like it. It has a (harmless) oddball character, and is sprinkled with pixie dust, but all it elicited in me was my innate cynicism. It’s amiable and doesn’t suck, but it’s also ho-hum.

Written by Derek Connolly and directed by Colin Trevorrow, Safety Not Guaranteed is one of those indies that has the smell of Sundance, and sure enough, it won two prizes there. As per requirement of these sorts of things, it celebrates the quirky and denounces the ordinary, but without much sting. Even the two government agents in the film, representing bad, bad authority, are polite.

The film stars Aubrey Plaza as an intern at Seattle Magazine. We meet her during an interview for a job at a chain restaurant, where she reveals herself as antisocial and depressed. She’s basically playing the character she does on TV’s Parks and Recreation, but without the wit.

When a reporter at the magazine (Jake Johnson), pitches a story about a strange advertisement looking for a partner to go back in time, Plaza volunteers, and she is chosen, along with an extremely shy Indian-American (Karan Soni). The three head to a small coastal town to find the guy who placed the ad. The ad, which is based on a true story, is the funniest thing in the movie.

He turns out to be Kenneth, who lives in a ramshackle house in the woods. After rebuffing Johnson, Plaza finds that he trusts her, and she gets to know him and eventually like him. Kenneth is played by indie stalwart Mark Duplass, who does a nice job of keeping us in the dark on whether he is really crazy or not. Well, he is crazy, but just how crazy we don’t know.

As Duplass and Plaza have a sweet little romance, Johnson spends his time tracking down an old girlfriend while trying to get Soni laid. Both of these subplots are extraneous and ill-advised. Johson, in fact, is a drag on the movie, and he in no way acts like a reporter, and the scene in which he tells his old girlfriend that he’s changed is embarrassingly written and acted.

This might have made a nice short film, focusing just on Duplass and Plaza, but it isn’t. The notion of crazy people being the sanest among us has been batted around in movies since almost the beginning, and this film has nothing new to say about it. The visual style of Treverrow is TV sit-com.

My grade for Safety Not Guaranteed: C-.